Home Warranty of America

we do not Agee and should be refunded do to your representative failure to promperly labeling our claim as an emergency and allowing us to get a vendor to repair and fix the issue. Since all caps are recorded I would like to receive a transcript of the initial call detailing the error on the HWA representative part. 
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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

response.   On December 3, 2015, the customer opened a 13 month warranty with our company.   Over this contract period, they filed 3 claims, and the warranty replaced their dishwasher at a cost of over $800.00.   On January 3, 2017, the customer chose to renew their contract, paying monthly.   On March 27, 2017, the customer filed a claim for their Air Conditioner.   The customer told us they had their own technician to the property, who had found a leak in their evaporator coil. Per our contractual agreement, we immediately attempted to assign a technician to diagnose the reported failure.   On March 31, 2017, the customer called looking for the diagnosis.  We called the vendor, who advised they were out the prior evening, and the customer was not using the emergency heat, due to cost.  They stated they would provide the diagnostics by April 3, 2017.   (Please note: in this time period we received multiple calls from the customer, and tried to get the information from the technician, do address the repair-Per contract section VII.B: “HWA is not liable for losses or damages resulting from misdiagnosis or delay s in completing diagnosis or repairs.”)   On April 5, 2017, The technician advised of a coil leak, and wanted to replace the evaporator coil.  We requested specifications and costs on the replacement of the customer’s inside air handler, to determine the best way to address the repair.   Approximately 3 weeks later, the technician called back with the specifications, and it was determined that the best repair was a replacement coil, which was approved on May 9,2017.   The Non covered costs in question, were quoted by the technician for the replacement of the customer’s Air Handler.  We are not sure why that would have been paid by the customer, as per our information, the coil was replaced for the customer, and not the air handler. .     As to the cancellation policy, that is disclosed in section VIII.E of our contract.  The customer has cancelled their coverage.   We are sorry the customer feels that we are a scam, after paying for their dishwasher, and over $1,500 for a replacement coil.     Sincerely, [redacted] DE Services HWA Claims Handling Manager

Revdex.com,
I would like to remove my entire complaint ID [redacted] as the vendor is working with us.How do we completely remove this complaint from your website etc??
Sincerely,
[redacted]

August 22, 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 provide the following response....

  The basic purpose of our warranty contract, is to provide a technician to diagnose a reported failure with the eligible appliances and systems in a customer’s home.   The diagnosis of the customer’s AC system was challenging, due to the placement of the system, which is, per the technicians assigned, somewhat hard to access.   We have received a technician’s diagnosis, which advised that the unit is improperly sized for the property, which is excluded from our coverage.   After receiving the customer’s complaint, we contacted another technician, to confirm if the unit is improperly sized based on the size of unit and reported square footage of the home.   We are looking to send a second opinion, at no cost to the customer, to confirm the diagnosis received, but the customer has contacted legal representation.  We have left her attorney a message and are waiting for their response.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: They (HWA) cannot "dispute the statement", because it is on their record, as serviced by their vendor (as HWA scheduled this particular contractor). Great company, should've read their reviews before purchasing.
Sincerely,
Matt [redacted]

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

the repair.      Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Revdex.com Representative;   Thank you for your assistance.  I received an email today from the Revdex.com saying my complaint has been forwarded to Home Warranty of America for resolution.  I wanted to let you know that yesterday after...

I put in the complaint, Home Warranty of America did call me.    The conversation was with a supervisor.  She continued to tell me that the plumbing for my pool filtration system is not covered.  Her response is you have to go to the plumbing section and it states no plumbing is done outside.  I don’t have the contract in front of me so I can’t confirm.  However, I continue to argue that it is part of the pool and falls under that section of the contract.  And, with them putting in the pool section that they do not cover above ground piping encased in concrete, they are implying, or by default, they are saying they cover above ground piping that is not encased in concrete.  She continued to say no, I am wrong.  My argument back was, then if no plumbing is covered under the pool section, then the exclusion would have been “no plumbing” vice “above ground concrete encased plumbing” is excluded from coverage.    I did at least get her to agree that I should not have to pay the $100 for the visit as their employee should have known my issue was not covered if in fact no outside plumbing is included in the coverage.  My feeling is either it is a scam and by not telling me if it is covered, they get to charge me for the initial visit by a worker and then charge me again the time for the worker to return to do the repair ensuring a cost of $100, or they do cover outside plumbing for pools as the pool section implies.  Also, if they don’t do any outside plumbing, then it should have been an easy answer from the rep that what I was asking for was not covered.  Either way, it is a scam in my opinion.   Bottom line, I am not satisfied with the results so far.  I am glad I don’t have to pay the $100 to them but now I will have to pay someone $160 or more to do the repair.  They did not honor their warranty and that just is not right.  They know no one is going to sue over this because who has the time and money to do so.  They need to do the work they warranted.  I am speaking to a lawyer tonight on the issue to see what she thinks and if there is something that can be done.   Thanks, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  I simply requested the total amount to be reimbursed (per HWA is $2100) to be confirmed in writing.  HWA said that they can not email or mail verification that I will be reimbursed and that I will just have to take their word for it. They said that the only thing they can do is note it in my account and that they will send me a check once I submit a paid in full statement.  Their process of reimbursement is not mentioned in my contract at all.  This situation requires an addendum to the contract or a letter of confirmation as to the amount to be reimbursed.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

October 26, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]/[redacted] ID-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   On August 11, 2016, the customer opened the following...

electrical claim online:   “Covered Item Problem: No Power To Part Of The Home Has this item ever worked?: Yes When did you first notice the problem?: About a week ago Problem Description: There is no power in my garage. I've checked breaker boxes, and nothing appears to be switched off. Thanks!”   He provided the following e-mail (excerpts below) on August 26, 2016:   “Thank you, again, for your help with the garage electricity claim. Unfortunately, I did not notice until the repair person was already gone that whatever went wrong with with the electrical system also appears to have broken the garage door opener as well as my sprinker system control unit. As these are directly related to the electrical issue, would you please let me know what needs to be done to arrange a repair of these units under the claim as well?”   On August 29, 2016, the customer opened a Revdex.com complaint, making the following demand.   “I would like to have a service technician dispatched to repair my electrical outage. Immediately. Restitution regarding dying grass and landscaping due to non-functional irrigation systems that required the non-functional electrical supply are becoming necessary s well.”   The customer has filed now a second complaint referencing “Minor technicalities” and “contract loopholes”, but it appears that he is looking to have the contract address his garage door opener (eligible under the contract)and sprinkler system (excluded from the contract), claiming that both were damaged by an electrical failure or surge (which is not normal wear and tear and not included in our coverage-secondary damage.)       The customer then misquotes the contract with his statement:   “As an example, the contract states that a service technician will be dispatched within 2 days...”   The contract does not state that, as we cannot control the technician’s schedule.  The contract states in section III:   “HWA will dispatch Service Requests to an Authorized Repair Technician within 48 hours.”   It would seem, that after the warranty has covered approximately $750.00 in eligible repairs, the customer wishes to impugn the warranty service, and demand we address two failures, one of which is fully excluded from the contract.   We have sent a service request to a technician, per our contractual obligation, to diagnose the failure with the garage door system. If the failure is related to a power surge it will not be covered.       Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

September 15, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  Silva TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have...

received the customer’s complaint, and addressed this issue with the customer directly. (At no point was the customer lied to, in reference to the repair.   We are sorry that there was apparently confusion about the repair options.)   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 6, 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 though, per contract, we are not...

liable for the actions of a technician, we have arranged the repair.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

August 10, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] GA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and they have now advised that they...

will no longer address the issue with us.  They are arranging a full replacement through a technician we have not approved.  They have also advised that they will address this through legal channels.  We requested that their technician contact us to review the issue, but the customer has refused.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

November 19, 2015[redacted]Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611Re: [redacted]  TX-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]: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, per section I.B.11:““Service” or “Services”
means the diagnosis and performance of the work, including parts and labor, to
repair or replace any Covered System and Component that becomes inoperable due
to a mechanical failure caused by routine wear and tear in accordance with the
provisions set forth in this Contract.”Additionally, per section
VII.I:“HWA has the sole right to
determine whether a covered appliance, system or component will be repaired or
replaced.”So, the customer’s statement
that we are required to replace or upgrade her system is not correct. The customer also refers to
the ban on R22 equipment, which does not go into effect until 2020.  R22 refrigerant, as well as the units that
use it, are still available and used. Finally, the customer claims
that a technician in September overcharged their system with 2 pounds of R22.  We require that technicians [redacted]ry insurance
to address damage that may occur to a customer’s property during the course of
a repair. If the customer wishes to file such a claim, that is their
prerogative.  We will happily provide her
the information if she wishes to file a claim, but per our Contract, section
VII.Q:“HWA will not be the
Authorized Repair Technician and HWA will not perform the Services hereunder.
HWA will only subcontract with Authorized Repair Technicians that meet its standards.
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.”We are not liable for the
technician’s supposed error, nor the new charge for the new unit.Sincerely,[redacted]Escalated Special Handling

January 17, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] : [redacted]  VA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received a second opinion on the reported diagnosis, and have...

requested the customer’s invoice, for review.    Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

March 22, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  NJ-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s rebuttal and are providing the following response. The customers accusation of being disingenuous, is blatantly false, as that is exactly what we were waiting for.   We have no way to force a technician to complete a repair any more than the customer does.  We have an agreement with the technician, and expect them to follow though, but if they decide not to, that is their prerogative. The diagnoses from the last technician matches a prior diagnosis.  The possibility of a failure with the Evaporator coil is not new information. The customer was never told that “the system was approved for replacement”.  The prior technician was looking to replace a compressor, and there were $610.00 in non covered costs. This is not, nor has ever been, a system replacement. Now, the customer is looking for the current technician to perform what they believe the prior technician quoted, at the prior technician’s  costs.  We do not blame the customer for the technician declining to perform the work, but the customer cannot hold us, or the new technician liable for the past technician’s failure. Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

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

addressed the following day.  We have resent the technician to evaluate the issue.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

August 10, 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 inquiry, and have addressed the issue...

directly with the customer.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

August 3, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] WA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and provide the...

following response.   On July 23, 2017, we were contacted by the customer, who advised of a clogged sink, and a backup in the tub and basement.  At this time they claimed to have been contacting our office for 48 hours(but the complaint states 24), and had already contacted their own technician.  Per contact, we have the “sole and absolute right to select the Authorized Repair Technician to perform the Service”, and understanding the customer’s need, allowed them to use the technician they had called, advising we would reimburse based on our cost.   We have no indication of a call from the customer prior to July 23, 2017.   We have multiple names on this account, and either party can file a claim, or request information.   We have no recording of a disconnected call with our customer.    We are sorry that we are unwilling to pay the customer’s technician’s inflated bill for $1,380, for two  roddings and a hydrojet.   We will provide the offered reimbursement of our cost as agreed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

August 3, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] SC-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry, and provided a...

technician to address the reported failure.    The customer is dissatisfied with our service and is cancelling the coverage.   Though they are not entitled to a full refund, per contract, we are providing said refund as a courtesy.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

May 4, 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 complaint, and provide the following response....

  On March 30, 2017, the customer; purchased a warranty with our company, moved into the property and noticed their  20+ year old [redacted] refrigerator not cooling.   The following day, they filed a claim on the unit, and, per contract,  a technician was sent to diagnose.   The technician found the unit leaking and low on R-12 refrigerant, which is no longer commercially available.  Per contract section VI.I:   “…for the first 30 days of the Home Owner’s Coverage Period, HWA is not liable for replacement of entire systems or appliances due to obsolete, discontinued or unavailability of one or more integral parts. However, HWA will provide reimbursement for the costs of those parts determined by reasonable allowance for the fair value of similar parts.”   We offered the customer the fair value of the refrigerant, per contract, and they are dissatisfied with the offer.  We acknowledge that the customer cannot repair the unit.  As, the warranty is not liable for the replacement, there is nothing more that can be done to address the issue.    Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling