Home Warranty of America

June 8, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s rebuttal, and as stated , we have resolved the situation with them directly, as far as the approval of the replacement condenser.    The customer is fully aware that the replacement was delayed by winter weather,  and they can easily reopen the complaint if the replacement unit that has been ordered, is not installed.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

January 17, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] : [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have requested the refund, and the customer should have the reimbursement in 4-6 weeks.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I still have not been paid for this claim.  I have also asked for a report of why my claim was initially denied and have not received it.  
Sincerely,Jeremy [redacted]
Jeremy [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,
Kenneth [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: after I submitted the claim online, I didn't get a call for over a week so I called in and I DID speak to a representative at HWA to have a new company sent out. The first company they assigned my claim to was too busy. But, as you can see in my original online request, I stated the door wouldn't stay sealed. Then when I spoke to their rep on 7/24/17,  I told her again it was the seal that was broken and she did not inform me that was not a covered item on our policy. They had 2 chances, online claim and on 7/24 to tell me. Instead they assigned a new company which I had to pay $85 for just to be told after the fact that it was not covered. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

February 2, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] GA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have reviewed the customer’s complaint, and have spoken to the customer...

to address the issue.  The reissued check, to the altered address is in process.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I am not satisfied nor convinced with just receiving an invoice and check number. I paid the technician $100 at the time of service, I still have no proof there was an additional $190 charged and my total billing was $290. I am extremely dissatisfied with the level of customer service and deceit I feel I have received. I feel I should be given a refund of the $190!
Sincerely,
[redacted]

August 4,  2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: Wagener IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing...

the following response.   On January 12, 2016, the customer opened a 13 month warranty contract on their newly purchased property.  The contract requires all systems and components to be in proper working order and specifically states, per Section I.A.2 of that contract:   “Malfunctions which existed on the Coverage Period Start Date will be covered only if the malfunction was unknown and could not have been detectable by visual inspection or simple mechanical test.”   & Per 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. Attached garages, detached garages, exterior pools, spas, well pumps, septic tank pumps and air conditioners are included in this definition.”   On the morning of May 25, 2016, the customer filed the following claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: Straight Air Conditioner - used in air conditioning season only When did you first notice the problem?: Yesterday Q & A: Q: Has the air conditioner ever worked properly for you A: No Q: Have you ever run the heat A: Yes Q: Please tell us how the heat worked for you A: No Problems Q: Please Tell Us The Nature Of The Problem You Are Experiencing A: There is no air coming out of the vents Q: Have you had maintenance performed on the system A: No Q: How many units do you have A: Two Q: Please tell us which part of the home is not cooling A: Upstairs Q: Please tell us how long the unit has been running properly for this season. A: Never Problem Description: Turned on the air conditioning unit for the upstairs of the home. Could hear the unit working - seemed that it was turning off and on a lot, but then would work consistently for 30min or so. Never got cool. Unit ran for 3 hours and it was 85 degrees upstairs at night. 1st floor working fine. Can you please help us quickly? My husband has a heart condition and must stay in the bedroom to sleep (has a transponder that reports back to hospital that is hardwired into the bedroom) and it was so hot that he was not doing well. Thanks”   We assigned a technician, per our contractual agreement, but there were initial difficulties in scheduling.     The technician found a failed capacitor in the unit.  As the customer advised the unit never ran properly, or worked properly this season, we requested a copy of their home inspection to confirm  “no defect is known or would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test on the Coverage Period Start Date.”   Per their inspection, The AC was not tested.  Had the unit been serviced/tested, the failures would have been detectable.   The technician replaced the contactor, and the customer recalled them, in reference to the unit still not cooling properly. The technician found the pressure was way too high. He noticed that the 2 condensers were sitting side by side and were too close. They also found leak lock on the service caps, with missing Schrader caps.  They believed the unit may have been installed improperly and restricted.  They requested a second opinion to re-evaluate.   The second opinion found the coil sodt soldered instead of brazed, which is an improper installation, that would have been detectable by visual inspection, or mechanical test.   As the unit never worked properly, we would not address the repair/replacement of the unit that was not in proper working order.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

September 30, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   [redacted]
  Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received the customer's complaint and would like to...

respond accordingly.   On May 1, 2016, [redacted], as a real estate agent, purchased our warranty on a property she has been residing in since 2013.   On May 25, 2016, the customer opened an Air conditioning claim.  Per our Contract, Section I, we sent a tech to diagnose the failure with the customer’s system.  The customer requested earlier service, so we had a technician address the diagnosis on May 28, 2016 (the tech found a leak in the service valves, resealed them, and recharged the system).   On June 17, 21016, the customer reported that two days before, the unit was not cooling. We reassigned the work order to the initial technician, but they were booked.  We allowed the customer to get her own technician, but when they found the unit secured, we needed to send the first technician back, who came out on June 21, 2016.   Per the technician, they found leaks in the inside coil and outside coil, and recommended replacement.  The technician provided a breakdowns of costs, and we called the customer to get their approval of their portion of the repair ($1,209.60).  The customer disputed the costs, and had to think about whether she was moving forward with the replacement or not.   The following day, the customer called the technician, wanting them to remove items from the installation to lower the cost (This could not be done). We also received a request from our internal sales representative(that the customer contacted), requesting we get a second opinion, to try to lower the costs.   We declined to pay for a second opinion, offering the customer the choice of paying the non-covered costs, or taking our cashout on the cost of the repair (per 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.”)   On June 23, 2016, the customer wanted the non-covered costs in writing (we had advised the customer of the costs repeatedly, but they wanted them in writing from the tech.).  The tech could not provide an invoice, but provided the breakdown for the customer.   On June 29, 2016, we provided the customer the amount of the cashout.   (At this time, the customer began requesting a refund of the refrigerant installed by the technician on the initial repair)   On July 1, 2016, the customer approved the non covered costs, and we approved the installation, and ordered the replacement unit.   On July 11, 2016, a dispute developed between the customer and the technician.  (The technician asked for the non covered costs up front on the day of install, and the customer supposedly agreed. Then, at the time of the install, the customer refused, stating she would pay them after the install. )     The following day, we spoke to the customer, addressing a partial reimbursement from the technician’s initial service.  The customer wanted us to send another technician.  We declined, advising her that she could pay the quoted costs  up front to the technician, or we would provide a $1418.00 cashout. The customer did not decide.   On July 14, 2016, Her agent e-mailed, and we explained the situation to him.   He stated that the Air handler was going to fail, but we do not address what will fail.  We address what has failed.  The customer also e-mailed ,complaining about the delay ( that she was causing herself).   She requested the air handler replacement before it fails(which we declined).  She again requested a second opinion (which we again declined). She again stated she had not made a decision.   On July 18, the customer e-mailed again, increasing the cashout offer to $1500.00, we reminded her it was $1,418.00, and she advised she was consulting an attorney.   A month later, we received the legal request that we explain why we are not covering more of the $4,500.00 replacement cost.  We advised the attorney that we are providing our cost on the repair, as referenced in contract section VII.O.   Our position is, that we are not liable, for the $4,500.00 spent by the customer.  Our cost on the install is the $1,418.00 that the customer still has not accepted.   If you should have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at extension 1-[redacted]   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalate Special Handling

August 4, 2016   [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 complaint and provide the following...

response.   On April 8, 2016, The customer opened the following claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: Button On The Wall Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: About a week ago Q & A: Q: Please Describe The Problem You Are Experiencing A: The Opener Is Making  A Very Loud Noise Q: Please tell us how many times this item has worked properly since the contract start date A: More Than Five Times Problem Description: light will stay on never goes off, garage, door slowly opens.”   We assigned a technician to address the issue, per our contractual agreement.   The customer advised the technician was out on April 11, 2016, but we never received an update from them as far as work performed.   On April 14, 2016, we assigned a second opinion, at no fee due, based on the customer’s report that the first technician, did not complete the repair properly.   On April 20, 2016, the technician advised us that they reinstalled the opener, repairing the stated failure.   On May 3, 2016, the customer called back stating that now the door would not open with the remote, and would not close all the way.(Please note, this was not the original problem reported) We sent the technician back to the property, who advised us that on May 9, 2016, they adjusted the sensors.   On July 23, 2016, the customer stated in late June, they noticed an intermittent issue with the door working, and a light went out in the unit. Per section III.E of the contract:   “If service work performed under this contract should fail, then HWA™ will provide for the necessary repairs without an additional Service Fee for a period of 90 days on parts and 30 days on labor.”   We sent a technician to evaluate the unit, and a fee was charged because the service was outside the technician’s warranty for labor.   The technician came out, and found no mechanical failures with the unit. Per contract section III.D:   “You will pay $60 for each trade service call, (“Service Fee”) or the actual cost, whichever is less. The Service Fee is for each visit by an HWA™ approved Service Provider, except as noted in this Article III (E), and is payable to the HWA™-approved Service Provider at the time of each visit. The service fee applies to each call dispatched and scheduled, including but not limited to those calls wherein coverage is included, excluded, or denied.”   Thus, the customer is responsible for the trade fee that she paid for the second claim.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

March 9, 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 complaint on this...

property, and provide the following response.   Per our contractual agreement with the customer:   ·        Section VII.C:  “HWA is not responsible for providing access to or closing access from any covered item which is concrete-encased or otherwise obstructed or inaccessible (including but not limited to beneath crawl spaces, floor coverings, systems, cabinets, etc.).   ·        Section VII.G:  “HWA is not responsible for consequential or secondary damage. This includes but is not limited to, repair of conditions caused by chemical or sedimentary build up, insect infestation, mold, mildew, or bacterial manifestations, misuse or abuse, failure to clean or maintain as specified by the equipment manufacturer, missing parts, structural changes, fire, freezing, electrical failure or surge, water damage, theft, intentional acts, riot, lightening,  mud, earthquake, soil movement or soil settlement, storms, accidents, pest damage, Force Majeure Events (as defined below), failure due to excessive water pressure or any other perils are not considered loss or damage due to normal wear and tear.”   ·        Section VII.Q:  “You agree that HWA is not liable for the negligence or the other conduct of the Authorized Repair Technician, nor is HWA an insurer of the Authorized Repair Technician’s performance.”   So, per the customer’s demand that the warranty company address their baseboard:   The warranty is not responsible for providing access to piping behind the customer’s baseboard.   The warranty does not cover baseboards, nor are we responsible for intentionally damaged equipment.   The warranty is not liable for the technician’s negligence or conduct,  so if the technician damaged the customer’s baseboard, that is between the customer, the technician and their insurance(s).   It is unclear why the insurance company feels we should file a claim on the customer’s baseboard, as we did not damage the baseboard, we did not witness the damage, nor can we explain the situation surrounding the damage firsthand.      We have contacted the technician  to review the situation, and provided the customer the technician’s insurance information. That is all we can do to address the supposed damage they caused.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

June 23, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and per the second opinion,...

 it would appear that there is no failure with  the customer’s HVAC system.   (The technician found the units running properly, with the problem being the cathedral ceilings and a lack of return air in the property. )      Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

May 9, 2017   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:   Qorri AZ-2720799   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Our contract, section VIII.E, provides explanation for what refunds would be available, should a customer choose to cancel their coverage.   We acknowledge that the customer feels we should provide them a full refund if  a claim is denied, but that is not a requirement of our contractual agreement.      Sincerely,     Carl [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

April 3, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] ND-[redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We received the customer’s inquiry, and have contacted...

them directly to address the issue.  Their resolution is in process, and we apologize for any unnecessary delays in the handling of this claim.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

February 26, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]  IL-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s...

complaint and are providing the following response. On November 20, 2015(Friday), the customer reported that their heating system was not working.  We immediately assigned a technician, and when they could not service, assigned a technician that could service same day. The following morning(Saturday), the customer’s wife called, and reported that the technician could not provide the part needed to fix their unit until Monday.  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 (“[redacted]s”) 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 [redacted], then HWA’s obligations shall be suspended to the extent made necessary by such [redacted], and in no event shall HWA be liable to You for its failure to fulfill its obligations or for damages caused by any [redacted]s include, but are not limited to acts of God, fire, … shortages in supply, changes in laws, rules or regulations of any governmental authority, and any other cause beyond HWA’s reasonable control.” The inability of the technician to purchase a needed  part over the weekend, is beyond our control.  The customer requested we call a different technician, hoping that they may have the part.  We tried to, but could not find another available technician, so we gave the customer’s wife the ability to call their own technician. We advised her that the technician needed to call us, with their diagnosis and pricing at the time of the service, so we could approve the repair.  This was not done. Three months later, the customer called us, looking for a reimbursement for the repair that the technician performed without our approval. Per our Contract, section III.D: “HWA has the sole and absolute right to select the Authorized Repair Technician to perform the Service; and HWA will not reimburse for Services performed without its prior approval.” As the customer did not have the technician provide their diagnosis and costs at the time of service, we did not approve the repair. Since we did not approve the repair, we would not reimburse for the repair.   As yet another courtesy, we offered and are providing the customer $483.60 in reference to the cost of the non approved repair. In response, the customer has filed a complaint against us with the Revdex.com.. Per his complaint, the customer acknowledges that they did not provide us diagnosis and pricing, and wants a full refund of the repair anyway. The customer is clearly not appreciative of the reimbursement we are offering and feels that they should get a full refund, even though they did not follow through with our requirements.  We will not provide them their $322.40 demand. Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

July 7, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] IN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s message, and their HVAC system was always eligible...

under our contract.  Per their complaint, they are disputing the non-covered costs, because of the required upgrade to change the system from an R-22 unit, to a R-410A unit.   We have reviewed the issue with the customer,  and are resolving the issue.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 12, 2017   [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 message, and have confirmed that the unit was...

available for pickup on July 7, 2017.  The technician has been approved, and should have scheduled the repair.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The $30 reimbursement is completely separate from the $1800 offered to settle our heat pump.  The $30 should have been reimbursed in June - long before HWA even informed me that they had no intention of covering replacement of our heat pump.  It is like the final insult for HWA to now go back on what was promised when they advised me in MAY to secure my own vendor because there is not a single vendor in our area who will do business with them.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

September 29, 2016   [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 complaint, and provide the following response.   On August 26, 2016, The customer reported their water heater leaking from the bottom.   This was four days after they moved into the home.   On August 29, 2016, the technician reported that the 14 year old water heater was in poor condition, and leaking from the bottom.   Per our 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 home inspection, and per the document, the T & P valve was leaking.   As there was a known leak from the heater, we would not replace the unit that was not in proper working order.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

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 although it took almost a week and a half beyond the date that they (HWA) originally said it was approved in order for the vendor to move forward to get the heat pump (a/c) unit replaced. 28 days without air conditioning in the dead of the summer in Arizona is completely unacceptable. I would give this company the poorest rating possible for no urgency in processing claims that have urgency issues when the item is clearly covered by their warranty. This company is horrible to their customers. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]