Home Warranty of America

April 10, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]([redacted]) IL-[redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received the customer’s inquiry, and...

apologize for any frustration they may have endured in the resolution of the heating claim.  We have spoken to the customer directly, and resolved the issue.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The AMOUNT to be paid and DATE of completion has NOT been verified.The HWA reply does not specify the DETAILS of the resolution. We were informed by a HWA supervisor that a the amount of $5239.00 would be paid to us ($5000 for the replacement of our AC unit and a $239 reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expense to a vendor HWA approved to diagnose the problem), and a date the check would be sent would be verified in writing. This was 5 days ago. We were also informed that a HWA employee would contact us to provide these details in writing. He did contact us, but refused to comply stating the information would be in the response to the Revdex.com complaint. He actually stated it would not be worth his time because the check would already be in our possession since it was being "express" mailed. We have received nothing nor a response from anyone since that time. A very general statement was provided to the Revdex.com from HWA. This HWA individual was left a message by me regarding the lack of clarity and has not responded. This is the same pattern we have dealt with for the last 7 weeks! A HWA employee makes a statement, then does not follow through. They have now done it to the Revdex.com as well. Meanwhile, that individual disappears and the entire situation must begin again with someone new. This is also true regarding the original supervisor that verbally agreed about the amount to be paid. He was supposed to call 3 days ago with an update and has not not returned 2 messages left in the past 5 days. Once again, the heat index in our area will be over 100 degrees this week. As we have repeatedly expressed to HWA, my wife has a chronic illness and we have 3 small children that HWA continues to neglect with their incompetence. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: my complaint was not only about the non-covered charges but also about the very horrible customer service I received and the lack of explanation and follow up per the time frames the company gave me to have this resolved. I also asked on several of the calls for a clear breakdown of the charges and cot and none were given I was told different things time and time again about why the cost were what they were. I also received different information for the company to provide the service concerning my cost and no one at HWA has attempted to resolve the differences or explain them. However even with this explanation and breakdown there are still questions such as the pad or the "missing pieces" HWA says and the technician says aren't missing and were never reported as missing. Their inability to properly explain via their customer service reps who are the only department you can speak to and the lack of follow up from supervisors has made this an extremely long and unfortunate situation. It shouldn't take a customer filing a complaint with the Revdex.com to receive a detailed answer on the charges they are being told they will be charged. Again more so than anything it it the horrible customer service that has lead to the complaint. If things were explained clearly in the beginning the issue would not be at this point.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

December 21, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s response, per their desired settlement:   “I would like for HWA to honor the information provided to me by their person providing authorization for completion of the work and provide appropriate repayment for the replacement of the water heater and the associated code items as identified in the invoice that was submitted to them. I would like communication as to what items in my invoice fit under those categories of replacement and associated code items and how I am being repaid appropriately in accordance with that information.”   Per a review of the calls in question:   ·        The customer was advised on the call where they were offered their own vendor, that the warranty would provide reimbursement based on our cost.  ·        The customer was advised on the authorization call that we needed the invoice from the technician to determine what reimbursement could be provided ·        This was determined and the customer was advised. ·        We have increased our offer to resolve the issue.   We have offered the customer what we will to address this issue.  We will not change the offer based on covering non-eligible costs.     Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

June 20, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] ID-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response....

  On May 10, 2017,  the customer opened a thirteen month warranty with our company, and moved into their new property.   Twenty days later, the customer reported that their AC system was not cooling.  Per contract, we assigned a technician to diagnose the system.   On June 1, 2017, the technician reported that the customer’s 26 year old evaporator coil was leaking refrigerant, due to age and wear, leaving a nearly empty system, which would not occur in three weeks use.   Per our contract, section I.B.7:    ““Covered System(s) and Component(s)” means (i)systems and components as specifically described herein as “Included” and that are located inside the confines of the main foundation of the Covered Property; (ii) are in proper working order on the Coverage Period Start Date and (iii) become inoperative due to normal wear and tear, including breakdowns due to insufficient maintenance if at the time the issue or breakdown was unknown. Components shall be considered in proper working order if no defect is known or would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test on the Coverage Period Start Date.”   We requested a copy of the customer’s inspection, and they provided a letter from a friend, dated June 11, 2017, claiming that eight months before the contract went into effect (September 7, 2016), the hvac unit was in proper working order.  This in no way supports that the unit in question was in proper working order on May 10, 2017.   We have offered the customer a full refund of their contract cost, upon receipt of their request to cancel, but have heard nothing from the customer .   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: 11616991
I am rejecting this response because:According to the documents you gave me at closing AND your web site, my policy is supposed to cover "Unknown pre-exsisting conditions" and "Unknown insufficient maintenance."  I don't know if the heater worked during the period I owned the house but according to the language in your policy, it looks pretty clear to me that it's covered.  Your companies words not mine.  After all, isn't a warranty just a promise of performance?  https://secure.hwahomewarranty.com/realEstateProfessionalOrder.flw;jsessionid=97...⇄ company considered the matter closed as soon as they found out the parts were not available to repair the heater and it had to be replaced and they would have to write a check for $3000 to cover it.  If that wasn't the case: Why bother having their service provider look for parts for three weeks?  Why did he tell me they authorized replacing the heater?  I got a kick from your excuse that basically he was verifying that it wasn't covered.  Right, because HWA would be the first company to step up and say: hey this is actually covered, we owe you for this.  Good one.  Unfortunately, you are the only one who believes that.  He came out to fix the heater.  He discovered parts weren't available.  He gave you a quote to replace the pool heater and it was when you received the replacement quote that you decided to deny the claim because he couldn't just put a band-aid on it.I asked for a refund when Home Warranty of America told me they would not replace my pool heater (spring 2016??).  I followed up requesting a refund of my policy in writing as they request on June 13, 2016.  As of today, nothing.  How long does it take to process a check? Two and a half months?Looks like Home Warranty of America added another 30 Revdex.com complaints in the last couple of weeks.  That is pretty amazing.  I took a look at your facebook page and it looks like quite a few ticked off people posting negative experiences with HWA.  I found one that was posted in the last few days: Almost exact same situation but with a washing machine.  This company is pathetic.  You must have one heck of a salesperson to con real estate agents into wasting hard earned commission for this worthless so called warranty.I expect my heater replaced, just like the warranty defines it should be. 
Sincerely,
Brian [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10947230, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me if the check is for the full amount of $460.00. 
Sincerely,
Mary [redacted]

June 28, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We still have no information from the customer’s technician, in reference to the customer’s ductwork, so we still have no response at this time.  We still would request the customer’s technician provide information as soon as it becomes available, and are unable to reimburse for work done without our prior approval.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Services HWA Claims Handling Manager

November 8, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and provide the following response....

  On October 18, 2016, the customer filed the following heating claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: Gas Furnace - usually located in a basement, attic, or closet When did you first notice the problem?: Today Q & A: Q: Has the Heating System Ever Worked Properly A: Yes Q: Please Tell Us The Nature Of The Problem You Are Experiencing A: Other Q: Have you had maintenance performed on the system A: No Q: How many heating units do you have A: Two Q: Please tell us which part of the home is not heating A: Other Q: Please tell us how long the unit has been running properly for this season. A: About 2 Weeks Problem Description: Furnace located in basement. There is water leaking out of air handling unit. First noticed today when I stepped in a pool of water in furnace room. Don't know if the heat was actually working or not.”   Per our Contractual Agreement, we sent immediately sent the information to a technician to diagnose.   On October 19, 2016, the technician went to the property and found the 28 year old unit with a severely rusted out secondary heat exchanger.  Additionally, the draft inducer motor was damaged, and someone had attempted to repair it improperly.  Per diagnosis, the failures would not have occurred within the 3 months the contract was in effect.  Per Contract Section I.B.7:   “Covered Systems and Components” means systems and components as specifically described herein as “Included” and that are located inside the confines of the main foundation of the Covered Property and are in proper working order on the Coverage Period Start Date and become inoperative due to normal wear and tear, including breakdowns due to insufficient maintenance if at the time the issue or breakdown was unknown. Components shall be considered in proper working order if no defect is known or would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test on the Coverage Period Start Date.”   We requested the customer’s inspection, to confirm their unit was in proper working order.   Per the inspection, dated June 16, 2016:   “Older furnace present. Recommend HVAC technician perform a tune up of the furnace to promote safe operation.”   This recommended inspection was not done.  Had it been performed the improper prior repair of the unit would have been detected.    As the unit was not in proper working order, we would not address the replacement of the furnace.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

January 19, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received our customer’s inquiry, and provide the...

following response.   On December 22, 2017, the customer purchased a 13-month home warranty with our company, which requires all systems and components to be in proper working order on the Coverage Period Start Date.   Per her claim filed on January 2, 2018, she attempted to use her combination washer/dryer for the first time under contract on December 31, 2017. Upon its initial use, the unit left clothes soaking wet, and the dryer did not dry them.  Per our contractual agreement, we assigned a technician to diagnose the reported failure.   On January 10, 2018, the technician assigned called our office and reported two issues in the customer’s combination washer dryer.  The washer had a seized motor (which did not allow clothes to properly spin out), and the dryer had a severely clogged dryer vent.   As contract section 1.B.7 requires systems and components to be in proper working order on the coverage period start date, and become inoperative due to normal wear, we requested a copy of the customer’s inspection, to confirm the unit could be considered ‘in proper working order.’   Per the inspection document, the inspector stated: “Inspected, Repair or Replace The lint catch area of the dryer was full of lint when the lint screen was removed. This is a fire hazard and needs to be thoroughly cleaned along with the vent line to the roof”      This would indicate that the unit was not in proper working order, but the customer provided a receipt from her father’s landscaping company stating that the venting was cleaned on December 30, 2017.   Since that point, we have been trying to complete the motor repair, but the customer declined to have the first technician return.   We have assigned a second technician, and are currently waiting for their diagnosis.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

July 15, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  KY-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and a supervisor...

has called them twice to address the issue, leaving messages.   We are waiting for their return call.      Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 18, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]  GA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and provide the...

following response.   On June 30, 2017, the customer([redacted]) opened a warranty contract with Home Warranty of America   Six weeks later, [redacted]([redacted]’s husband) opened a claim on the Air Conditioning system, reporting a water leak from the upstairs heat pump.  Per contract, we assigned a technician to diagnose the failure.   Two hours later, he requested a change of vendor, stating the technician could not service fast enough.  As a courtesy, we reassigned the claim.   Two days later, prior to receiving a diagnosis, the customer called back, requesting we send the technician back to re-evaluate.   On August 17, 2017,  we were advised of clogged condensate lines by the second technician (excluded from coverage), and they had not yet returned to re-evaluate.  A third technician was assigned, to expedite service, and  since they were already on site, the claim was assigned to them.   On August 19, 2017, [redacted] called, frustrated by delays.  We called the technician, who was finalizing their diagnosis.   On August 23, 2017,  [redacted] opened a claim on their second unit.   On August 24, 2017, The technician advised they had incomplete information on the second claim, and would contact us with all the information when available.   On August 28, 2017, The technician reported a condensate overflow on the upstairs unit, and after performing a leak test,  found no leaks in the system.     (The tech at this time was looking for approval for leak test (eligible) and Air conditioner rental (not eligible).)   On September 20, 2017, [redacted] called, believing we had received the incorrect diagnosis.   We called the technician who advised that they had returned to the property on September 7, 2017.  There was no failure with the downstairs unit.  The upstairs unit had a leaking Evaporator coil, and though the technician had recommended changing out the condenser, the condenser unit had not failed.   Two days later, the technician again confirmed the diagnosis  (That there was no failure downstairs, and the coil upstairs was leaking).  We received their non-covered costs for the replacement condenser, which needed to upgraded, to work with the new coil. Per Contract, section V.C:   “Except as noted above or when optional coverage is purchased with this Contract, HWA will not pay for any modifications, upgrades, or additional work needed to evacuate/clean a system of R-22 necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment.”   We advised the customer of the quoted costs of the non-covered condenser replacement, as well as our cost on the evaporator coil replacement.   So, to address their inquiry specifically, the warranty is addressing the leaking evaporator coil, but the customer would have to approve the non-covered functional condenser to complete the repair.  Until they approve this, or accept the cash out for the coil replacement, we cannot go further with the issue.   Their demand for “funds, copay, lost wages, and damages”, is not something we are liable for, per contract section VII.J: “HWA IS NOT LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR ECONOMIC DAMAGES FOR LOSS OR DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON OR PROPERTY ARISING FROM THE LOSS OF USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE EQUIPMENT TO THE EXTENT SUCH MAY BE DISCLAIMED BY LAW, AND YOU EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ALL SUCH DAMAGES.”   HWA is not liable for reimbursing the customer for any ‘damages’ , in reference to the failure with their AC system.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

December 7, 2015Lucille [redacted]Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611Re: [redacted]: Montgomery  KY-2127043Dear Ms. [redacted]:We have received the
customer’s complaint, and provide the following response.On October...

30, 2015, the customer
opened a Home warranty with our company.On November 11, 2015, they
noticed a leak in their crawl space. On November 20,  2015, they called us to advise of the leak,
and we, per Contract, assigned a technician to investigate. On November 30, 2015,  The customer called looking for a status
update. We called the technician’s office, who did not have a complete
diagnosis., and advised they would call us back. On December 1, 2015, the
customer called again, looking for a status update.  We called the technician, who stated that the
customer has 60 feet of water service piping that needs to be replaced outside
the home.   Per our Contract, section
I.A.1:“During the Coverage Period,
HWA’s™ sole responsibility will be to arrange for an Authorized Repair
Technician to provide Service(s) for Covered Systems and Components located on
the Covered Property in accordance with the definitions, terms and conditions
of this Contract.”To define, Section I.B.7:““Covered Systems and
Components” means systems and components as specifically described herein as
“Included” and that are located inside the confines of the main foundation of
the Covered Property and are in proper working order on the Coverage Period
Start Date and become inoperative due to normal wear and tear, including
breakdowns due to insufficient maintenance if at the time the issue or
breakdown was unknown.”As the issue is outside the
home, it would not be eligible under the Contract.  The customer disputed the diagnosis stating
that the failure is beneath the home.  We
called the technician again who advised that the issue is with 60 feet of piping the metering device, both outside the home, and they do not address
this type of issue.  Due to the diagnostic
dispute and the technician not addressing this type of issue, we have sent a
second opinion, at no cost to the customer. We are sorry that the
customer strongly feels that we are trying to commit fraud, and has reported his
opinion in this manner.  We have followed
our Contract and we will continue to do so when we receive the new diagnosis.   Sincerely,Carl [redacted]Escalated Special Handling

July 22, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have...

received the customer’s complaint and provide the following response.   The  customer claims we are non responsive to his calls and messages, but we have responded to the customer leaving our own messages for him when he has contacted us.    On July 14, 2016, the technician states on an online message : “tried to communicate to reschedule customer. custoemr nevers return call or answers phone’   So we are re-assigning a second opinion at no fee due, as a courtesy to the customer.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

July 11, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  CA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s message, and provide the following...

response.   In November 2016, a technician determined that there was a failure with the customer’s core valve, and their AC unit was low on charge.  Per  contract section V.E:   “HWA will pay up to $10 per pound for the cost for refrigerant for authorized repairs. You are responsible for payment of any costs in excess of $10 per pound.”    So the funds that the customer paid in November, were for the non-covered refrigerant.   Between then and now, the customer has reported problems with the unit cooling, and multiple technicians have diagnosed the customer’s system, finding no indication of a leak or failure with the system, and just an absence of refrigerant.   So, per contract, there is no mechanical failure to address with the system, and there is no reason or cause to reimburse the customer for monies paid for non-covered refrigerant.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

September 2, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] ([redacted]) LA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The repair was finished in two days.   There was no delay, and the customer was not lied to.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 3, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] ID-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The unit was not working properly, and we decline to address the HVAC issue that is not covered under contract.   We offered a full refund, with cancellation,  which was also declined.    We consider this issue closed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

November 12, 2015[redacted]Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  TX-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:We have received the
customer’s complaint. We...

spoke to them on November 9, 2015, and are providing
them a unit that matches their current system. 
The customer has approved the replacement. Sincerely,[redacted]l [redacted]Escalated Special Handling