Home Warranty of America

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/02) */
July 2, 2015
Esther [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Revdex.com
330 North Wabash, Suite 2006
Chicago, IL 60611
Re: 94557922: Delacerda: TX-1502843
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
We have reviewed the customer's request,...

received the diagnosis and costs from the technician, and approved the repair as of June 25, 2015.
If you should have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at extension [redacted].
Sincerely,
Carl [redacted]
Escalated Special Handling

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This was an unknown pre-existing by definition. I am tired of repeating myself. I was hoping to avoid small claims court. The furnace was covered. The furnace was visually inspected. The furnace was tested for proper function. The inspection report says it was functional. Since the insurance company wants to try to scam me out of what is owed. I have purchased a new furnace and had it professionally installed. The bill was 3800.00 dollars. The licensed contractor suggested I get a tune up next year. Bottom line is the cracked inducer motor and secondary exchanger were not detected by visual inspection or by simple mechanical function test. Thereby it was an unknown pre existing condition by HWA's definition. Which is covered under my policy. The secondary exchanger which had just cracked and started leaking water was the reason I found the problems in the first place. That alone constitutes coverage by itself. Do you not cover the secondary exchanger? That was not a pre existing condition.I will not just let this go. Insurance companies prey on the ignorance of there policy holders. Stop wasting your time. I was fully covered under my policy and demand compensation or you can pay for my furnace and lawyers wages.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

March 6, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] SC-[redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry and provide the...

following response.   On May 22, 2017, the customer opened a 13-month home warranty with our company.   After ten months of coverage, the customer filed two non-emergency appliance claims (Garbage Disposal and Dishwasher), on the afternoon on February 27, 2018.  Per contract section III.B: “HWA will dispatch Service Requests to an Authorized Repair Technician within 48 hours.”  We sent the work order to the technician directly.   On the afternoon of March 1, 2018, the customer complained that the technician scheduled dishwasher service for the following week. We reached out to other local technicians for service, but could not confirm service within the customer’s requested time frame (which we confirmed was 24 hours).   At no point in our contract, does it require the warranty to provide service in 24 hours.  We do not offer this, because we do not set the technician’s schedule and have no way to guarantee expedited service to our customers.   Thus, we have fulfilled our contractual obligation, in providing a technician that can service the customer’s reported failure.  We are sorry that we cannot service the customer as quickly as they would like, but we will not provide the customer a full refund.    Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

February 1, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  TN-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing the following...

response. On December 30, 2015, the customer opened the following Heating claim online: “Covered Item Problem: Heat Pump - Same system used for heating and cooling When did you first notice the problem?: Yesterday Q & A: Q: Has The Heating System Ever Worked Properly For You A: No Q: Have You Used the Air Conditioner A: Yes Q: Did The Air Conditioner Ever Work Sufficiently 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: One Q: Please tell us which part of the home is not heating A: Entire house Q: Please tell us how long the unit has been running properly for this season. A: About 1 Month Problem Description: Unit is located outside. The unit is blowing air, but the air is not warm. The air is slightly warmer that the outdoor daytime temperatures, but it cannot maintain any temperature setting I've set thermostat to. I had the thermostat set to 65 all day yesterday and it never reached that temp during the day (highest it got was 64) and at night it fell to 61.” We immediately assigned the work order to a local technician, to diagnose the issue. Per notes provided to us by the customer, she states she e-mailed us on January 11, 2016. On January 12, 2016, the technician called our office with a diagnosis, and cost breakdown.  We approved the repair that day. The following day the technician adjusted their costs, and advised of a small non covered cost. On January 14, 2016, we received a second e-mail from the customer, and called her to address the e-mail and get approval for the repair. January 15, 2016, we authorized the technician again, to complete the repair. We are sorry for the delay in the customer’s repair, but we did not get information from the technician for almost two weeks after the claim was filed. When we received the information, we approved the repair the same day, or the following day after they were modified. Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

December 6, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] TN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received the customer’s inquiry and provide the...

following response.   On December 2, 2016, the customer purchased a home warranty with our company, the purpose of which is to address failures with systems and components that (per contract section I.B.7):   “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…”   On November 22, 2017 (approximately twelve days prior to the customer making the initial contact referenced in his inquiry), the customer called our office, advising of a break in his main water line under his garage or driveway.  At that time, the customer was advised that the issue needed to be within the confines of the main foundation to be eligible under our warranty (see above), and they were advised to contact the city, as it was possible that the leak was on the city side of the piping.   On November 27, 2017(approximately seven days prior to the customer making the initial contact referenced in his claim), the customer called our office, advising of a water main leak in the driveway.  At that time, they were advised that a leak outside the main foundation would not be covered under the contact.   On December 4, 2017, the customer called, stating that a portion of the supply line had failed (outside the home), and as he was required to replace the line, he wished to file a claim on the poor quality piping (blue max) that was inside the main foundation of his home. The customer was advised that the warranty would only provide eligibility of coverage for a mechanical failure due to normal wear. As described by the customer, the failure was outside the main foundation, and due to the installation being done with poor quality piping.   The customer spoke with a supervisor, who explained that there was no mechanical failure with the piping inside the main foundation.   It would seem that the customer does not accept our explained position, so to clarify:  The intended purpose of the warranty is to address systems and components located inside the main foundation of the home that have become inoperative due to normal wear.  A failed pipe outside the main foundation is not eligible under our contract, nor would the warranty remove pipe that may fail from inside the customer’s home prior to failure.  We are sorry, but the warranty does not address external failures, or perform preventative replacements.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  You received the inspection, you reviewed, you came you fixed.  Fix did not work.  You came again.  Now you refuse to fix.  I have found the warranty for the unit.  "WARRANTY LIMITATIONS  This Limited Warranty does not cover damage or defect resulting from: d) operation of furnaces with air temperatures of less than 60 degrees fahrenheit"  As I have stated before.  You are UNABLE to test the AC in the winter due to the cold.  If this unit was tested it would have VOIDED warranty.   Your reasoning for rejecting claim is not appropriate.  
Sincerely,
Christina [redacted]

August 12, 2016   [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 their refund was...

processed prior to this complaint being received.     Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 6, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MS-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and have received the...

specifics of the replacement from the technician.  The customer has been contacted in reference to the issue moving forward.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

November 30, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Per our contractual agreement with the customer, section...

I.A.3.   “HWA IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED REPAIR TECHNICIAN and will not actually be performing the repair or replacement of any systems or components.”   The warranty provided a replacement dishwasher through the manufacturer of the unit in question, and paid the manufacturer to assign a local technician to deliver and install the unit.   Thus, we have no relationship with the technician in question, and have advised the customer to speak to them directly. It is unclear why the customer is not willing to address this with the technician that has already been to their home to resolve the issue.   We will not reimburse the customer the required trade service fee, that has been paid to the technician that originally diagnosed the issue.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

September 25, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and the replacement...

was approved the afternoon the complaint was filed      Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 31, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  OK-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We are still in communication with the customer, but it seemed she was not interested in the technician we provided completing the repair.   As it appears this is not the case, we are contacting the technician, to confirm when they will finish the installation.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:HWA has failed again to state all of the facts in the matter. Please my email below to Mr [redacted] on March 23, 2017. We now have serious safety concerns with the technician returning to our home to try again to make the repairs.Mr. [redacted], After 2.5 hours of trying to repair our microwave the technician advised me that in addition to the 4 parts received he will now need a controller board. He only installed one of the four parts because he stated that the cost was going to exceed the replacement cost if he had to replace the controller board. Furthermore, he was by himself and was balancing the microwave while installing the part. I questioned why he would not remove the unit to work on it and he stated that because it was hardwired he could not do that. Not sure why, its three wires and three wire nuts. I have advised HWA from the beginning that this unit is a 220v unit and in looking at the parts delivered for my repairs they are rated for 110v use. This raises serious concerns that this may be a fire hazard as a result of installing the wrong parts. He has used his cell phone to look up the location of where the parts are to be installed as well as looking up how to access the unit. In my opinion, I do not believe he is a ** trained/certified technician. I am also concerned that dama** to my CUSTOM CHERRY CABINETS may occur by him trying to make the repairs by himself without removing the microwave from the cabinet. I have pictures and video of him trying to make the repairs while the unit is still connected to 220v of electricity, rocking back and forth as he balanced the unit while trying to install the part. I believe this to be unsafe for him, a potential fire hazard and potential damages to my property because of negligent actions on his part. I think you would have to agree at this point, we have waited long enough to get this repair made and it is time for HWA to do the right thing for me as the customer. Please replace my unit from ** with the same unit that is available today. I am even willing to accept the 110v unit even though I paid an additional $365 for the 220v unit. Thank you in advance for your help! [redacted]407.704.9788Mr [redacted]'s response was, "thank you for the update". A total disregard for our safety concerns.We have also filed complaints to the Florida Attorney General's Office, Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) and the Illinois Attorney General as per the recommendation from the FL Attorney's Office. All have launched an investigation.Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

June 15, 2016   [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 complaint, and provide the...

following response.   On March 27, 2016, the customer opened the following claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: Other Brand: [redacted] Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: Today Q & A: Q: Please Tell Us What Type of Washer You Have A: Top Load Q: Please tell us how many times this item has worked properly since the contract start date A: More Than Five Times Problem Description: [redacted] Elite top loader - Purchased new in April 2013 It is making noise when the basket spins or agitates. Drained it and stopped using it.”   We immediately assigned a technician, who performed a repair on April 13, 2016.   On April 24, 2016, the customer reported the problem continuing, we resent the technician to investigate, who advised us of additional repairs needed, and that the necessary parts were on backorder through the manufacturer. Per our contract section VIII.A.7:   “HWA will make commercially reasonable efforts to fulfill its obligations under this Contract. Certain causes and events that are out of HWA’s reasonable control (“Force Majeure Events”) may result in HWA’s inability to perform under this Contract. If HWA is unable to perform its obligations, in whole or in part, due to a Force Majeure Event, then HWA’s obligations shall be suspended to the extent made necessary by such Force Majeure Event, and in no event shall HWA be liable to You for its failure to fulfill its obligations or for damages caused by any Force Majeure Event. Force Majeure Events include, but are not limited to acts of God, fire, war, flood, earthquake, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters, acts of terrorism, acts of any governmental authority, accidents, strikes, labor troubles, shortages in supply, changes in laws, rules or regulations of any governmental authority, and any other cause beyond HWA’s reasonable control.”   We have no information as to why [redacted](or **, as it is an ** made unit) is not supplying the parts needed for this repair, but we are being advised every week, that the parts will be available next week.  No one is advising that the parts are no longer available.      Per the customer’s settlement demand:   Per our contract section VII.O:   “HWA reserves the right to offer cash back in lieu of repair or replacement in the amount of HWA’s actual cost, which may be less than retail, to repair or replace any covered system, component or appliance.” The customer was made aware of our offer to provide our cost of the repair, which is why they are demanding full replacement.  We are not liable for a full system replacement, as the parts needed to repair the three year old washer are supposedly available.   Per our contract section VII.H:   “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.”   We are not liable for [redacted] (or **) not providing a needed part to repair the customer’s washer, nor are we liable for the customer’s costs to launder their clothes at a laundromat.   If the customer wishes to cancel their renewed contract, they just need to provide us the written request to do so, and we will cancel per section VIII.E   We are sorry the problem has occurred, and are sorry that these parts are being delayed from the manufacturer.  We are trapped, as the customer is, waiting for the equipment that they say is being made, but is on back order.   We have called the customer to discuss a possible resolution to this issue and have not heard back. If they wish, the customer can contact me directly at c[redacted]@hwahomewarranty.com.       Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

November 7, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] MS-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer is again trying to make an issue of who purchased the contract.  Whether they purchased it themselves, or whether a third party purchased it, it is still their contract.   The customer is not quoting the contract terms.  We have quoted from the contract, section I.B.7,  to answer the customer’s restated question.     As we have stated,  the unit was not working properly at the time of the inspection, so the unit did not “break down”  under the contract period   The customer’s insinuation that we are not standing behind the policy is false.   They are wanting the warranty to replace an item that never worked properly under the coverage, and are trying to indicate that it cooled for a few days.  Per the inspector it did not work properly prior to the coverage period start date, and as that issue was never addressed, will not be covered.   We consider this issue closed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

September 8, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] KS-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer was contacted in reference to the issue.  He wanted the requested reimbursement which he was told would be provided.  At that time, he seemed to believe that we would not provide him his refund, and that we had been intentionally ignoring his technician.   I am sorry I did not respond to the customer’s additional  e-mail as quickly as he wished.  (I was responding to other issues including an additional complaint filed by the customer with his local government).   He has received now his check, and the issue is closed.     Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

January 15, 2018     Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] WI-2636550     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received our former customer’s inquiry, and...

provide the following response.   On October 16, 2016, the customer opened a 13 month warranty with our company.   On May 18, 2017, the following claim was placed online:   “Covered Item Problem: Free Standing Range/Oven/Cooktop (Gas) Brand: Samsung Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: More than one month ago Q & A: Q: Please describe the problem A: Display issues Q: Please tell us how many times this item has worked properly since the contract start date A: More Than Five Times Problem Description: The display only works intermittently. Sometimes vibration from opening and closing the oven door will cause the display to begin working again, but usually only for a few seconds.”   Per our contractual agreement with the customer, we assigned a technician to diagnose the failure with the system.   Four months later, the customer called back, to reopen the claim, stating the unit was having the same issue.    Per our contractual agreement with the customer, we assigned a technician to diagnose the failure with the system.   On November 6, 2017, we were advised that the customer had not heard from the technician.  We called the technician, who had some information on the needed repair, and was still researching the issue.   On November 7, 2017, the technician advised they were going to the property.  Additionally, the customer’s contract expired.  As they had reported this issue prior to expiration, the warranty would address the reported issue.   On November 8, 2017, the tech diagnosed the unit failures, and found two parts that needed to be replaced.   On November 9, 2017, we confirmed that the parts could be repaired, and arranged for them to be shipped to a repair service.   On November 10, 2017, we advised the technician of the process.   On November 13, 2017, we requested the technician confirm the part numbers of the parts needed.   On November 14, 2017, the technician gave us the correct part numbers. Also, the customer requested a cash out on the cost of the repair, as allowed per contract.  We quoted the customer our cost on the repair ($250.00), and he stated he wanted us to continue with the repair of the unit.   On November 15, 2017, we ordered the parts, and then the customer called, requesting the cash out, instead of the repair.   On November 16, 2017, we processed the check, sending the payment to the customer.   On November 28, 2017, the customer called, requesting an additional cash out, stating that the unit was now showing a new error code.  We advised that the contract had expired, and we could not open a new claim, or reopen the prior claim with a new issue.  The customer advised he would contact the Revdex.com.   On December 5, 2017, the customer called to negotiate a full contract refund, rather than the $250.00 he had previously accepted and received.   On December 8, 2017, the customer spoke to my office, wanting a full refund and threatening legal action.   Per his desired settlement:   The warranty has fulfilled our obligation to the customer by assigning a technician to service their range, and at the customer's request providing them a check for our cost on the repair. The customer has received compensation, in the form of a check, that they accepted to address the repair. The warranty will not provide and additional $250.00 (which would be a full refund of the contract coverage) on a contract that has expired.   We consider the matter closed.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Our condenser unit that failed was a 3 ton unit. Without any disclosure, HWA had the contractor purchase a 4 ton condenser unit, which obviously would not fit the evaporator coil. If a new 3 ton condenser unit was ordered instead, we would not have incurred the cost of $604, and the evaporator coil would fit perfectly and no additional modification would be necessary. Therefore, because HWA had failed to disclose the truth about the details upfront and had falsely led us to replace A/C units for their negligence in their own work, we concluded that the charge of $604 is unnecessary and we demand the refund of the $604 and they finish the job. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because at this point it is clear HWA does not have the best interest of their customers. This is well documented by the hundreds upon hundreds of complaints similar to mine here. I am now asking for a full refund, so that I may shop another warranty service that will take accountability for its lack of service. 
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]

July 28, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We are glad that the customer is satisfied, and the issue has been addressed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling