Home Warranty of America

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] Jr

January 5, 2018     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] NC-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We are sorry that the customer does not accept our response.    Undated, non-specific minimal responses from the inspector and a technician, does not address the numerous stated failures with the systems and components in the customer’s inspection of their newly purchased home.    This is why we requested additional specific information as to the performed inspections/repairs, which was not received,      Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

May 31, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite [redacted]    Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted] TX-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: In June, 2015, an improper installation of the customer’s condensate drain lines, was found...

on the customer’s unit.  The repair of this issue necessitated the non-covered alteration of the customer’s functioning ductwork, and the addition of float safety switches that the customer didn’t have.  At the time, the customer refused to pay these costs, and as a courtesy to the customer, these costs were addressed on the customers behalf. Now, approximately a year later, we are addressing the  replacement of the customer’s evaporator coil, the customer is again disputing the required non covered line modifications, disposal costs, refrigerant costs and permits, stating we should cover all charges related to the air conditioning, whether the charges are a replacement coil and labor(which is covered), or the modification of his property to accommodate the new equipment (which is not). We decline to pay for the Non-covered costs.        Sincerely, [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 14, 2015
Esther [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Revdex.com
330 North Wabash, Suite 2006
Chicago, IL 60611
Re: 94573088: [redacted] CT-1986242
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
We have received the customer's complaint, and provide the following response.
On August...

18,2015, Liza [redacted] called our office looking for information on our coverages in reference to a duplex that she stated was in the process of closing. At that time, she was looking to confirm that the contract provided coverage for plumbing issues, as well as washers and dryers.
On the afternoon of August 20, 2015, she called back, to ask about service fees on the contract, and again confirmed coverage for plumbing problems in bathrooms, and well as washer dryer coverage. She specifically showed an interest in purchasing additional coverage to upgrade the refrigerator, clothes washer and dishwasher. The call was lost.
Ninety minutes later, she called back and opened a Contract with our company. This Contract requires that all systems and components, per 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, 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."
The following morning, when she paid for the coverage by credit card, she reported the main drain backing up. (which effected 2 kitchen sinks as well as a flood sink and an upstairs bathroom sink). Also, two separate bathrooms are being effected, with a 1st floor bathroom shower not producing hot water, with a broken diverter that had occurred the night before. She claimed that nothing had worked properly for her since the inspection in July. As the contract requires everything to be in place and in proper working order, as of the effective date, we requested a copy of her settlement statement to confirm that a collection was made for the warranty. (It appears that it was not, as the customer had apparently closed on the property August 10, 2015 and moved in two or three days later. They then purchased the warranty after they spent a week in the property.)
Eight days later, Mr. [redacted] called our office to file a claim on three issues that he stated had occurred two days prior,(shower diverter, toilet backup, kitchen sink leak) and was looking for a technician to do a walkthrough of the property, to confirm the property was up to code. (The warranty does not perform property inspections, but Mr. [redacted] was adamant about having someone inspect the plumbing in the property)
Additionally, he spoke of filing a claim on an appliance/appliances, and a possible leak in his roof, but did not file additional claims at that time
.
We assigned a technician, for the plumbing issue, but they declined to service the area, so we offered the customer the ability to get their own technician, while looking for another technician to address the issue.
On September 4 2015, Mr. [redacted] called back filing claims on his Washer, Refrigerator and Dryer. Then Ms. [redacted] called back to complain about the multiple fees due for the three appliance claimed filed, and stated her desire to cancel the contract.
On September 9, 2015, a plumber was arranged. The diagnosis provided was that the kitchen faucet is leaking, with a lack of venting from the sink, the laundry drain was improperly sized, the 3 handle tub shower valve was leaking, due to an improperly installed drain and vent, and a leaking sink basket strainer.
As the customer had mentioned experiencing various plumbing failures, since move in prior to contract purchase, we requested a copy of a visual inspection or mechanical test, to confirm the plumbing was in proper working order on the effective date of the Warranty Contract.
Mr. [redacted] disputed providing the inspection, and insisted that items should be covered, as they were unknown improper installations, per contract section VI.G:
"Improperly matched and/or installed systems defined as follows: HWA will repair or replace a covered system or appliance that fails or identified due to an associated failure that was not properly matched in size or efficiency, and/or improperly installed prior to or during the Coverage Period, provided that it was unknown or could not be known to the Home Seller, Home Owner, real estate or other agent by a visual inspection or simple mechanical test prior to the Coverage Period Start Date. "
We again requested a copy of his inspection, per section VI.G:
"HWA will pay no more than $750 in the aggregate during the Contract Period for any improperly mismatched and/or unknown improper installation. If a service request is made pursuant to this Contract option, HWA reserves the right to request a copy of any visual or mechanical test that may have been performed by a home inspector or other licensed mechanical contractor."
The inspection was provided on October 1, 2015 and per the documentation:
Page12-"Roof covering is "bowed" on the front side of the house and on the right side just past the middle of the roof. Recommend contacting a roof specialist to further assess/repair as required to reduce the potential for added deterioration"
Page 32-The Washer/Dryer are not staying/were not tested.
Page 34-None of the major appliances were marked as tested
Page 35-None of the bathroom plumbing was marked as functional, with specific reference made to a leaking diverter, indicated water damage at both tubs, and a failed 2nd floor drain stopper.
Thus:
There is a known issue with the roof, and recommendation for further investigation by a specialist, which to our knowledge, was not addressed
None of the appliances were tested (and had the washer been tested, the problem with the drainage would have been detectable, as it was by the customer before the contract started), but we are still waiting for the specific diagnostics, to determine the failures with the appliances in question.
None of the plumbing was marked as functional, with specific reference made to a failure noted from the inspection, which to our knowledge, was not addressed
The customer occupied the property for at least a week, prior to opening the Warranty Contract, and referenced noticing plumbing issues in that time period.
We have made multiple offers to the customer, with the intent of resolving the issue, but the customer has not accepted them. Now they state they intend to address this legally, and are looking to collect additional funds, in reference to secondary damage caused by the plumbing. (which is excluded, per section VII.G)
Sincerely,
Carl [redacted]
Escalated Special Handling

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  The warranty company is not covering the full cost of the replacement as they claim there are "modifications" and there are no modifications, only the replacement of the covered item.   They have their own definition of modifications which is not contractually defined and any payment over my contractual $100 deductible is unacceptable.   I see this as a fraudulent way of doing business.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

November 13, 2015[redacted]Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611Re: 10950209: Chavez  IN-2139048Dear Ms. [redacted]:We have received the
customer’s complaint and provide the following response.On November 6,...

2015, the
customer opened a contract with our company.Less than 24 hours later,  they opened a heating claim, stating that they
had a maintenance technician out and found a cracked heat exchanger in their
furnace.  Per our Contractual agreement,
we immediately assigned the claim to a technician to diagnose the issue.  On November 8, 2015, the
technician went to the customers home, and then advised us the following
morning that the approximately 28 year old furnace  had a two inch long crack in the exchanger. 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.”As a two inch long crack
would not occur in a two day period, per the Contract, we requested a copy of a
visual inspection or mechanical test, to confirm the unit was in proper working
order. The customer did not provide
the complete inspection for two days.  On
November 12, 2015,  when we received the
document, it was determined that the unit was past its lifespan, recommended maintenance
and cleaning, specifically the dirty blower motor.  It also advised that the exchanger should be
checked by a licensed contractor.  Had
the exchanger been inspected, the crack in the exchanger would have been
detected.  We advised the customer the
issue would not be addressed under Contract, he requested  to speak to a supervisor, who returned his
call that same day.  Also on that day,
the customer filed this complaint, and has requested his contract be cancelled. We understand that the
customer may have found a number of complaints on line in reference to failed
systems and components that we require be in proper working order on the
effective date of the Contract, and are sorry that their furnace was not.   We are processing their cancellation, as
requested. Sincerely,Carl [redacted]Escalated Special Handling

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is  not satisfactory to me.
I will let this close and contact the attorney general on this. HWA did not handle my issues at all. I had someone in my home with medical condition and was left with out A/C for a week. I had no other option but to repair on my own since this company would not handle.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

June 28, 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 May 21, 2017, the customer reported a failure with her AC system.  She noticed said failure two weeks prior.  Per our agreement, we assigned the claim to a local technician to diagnose the failure.   On May 24, 2017, the technician visited the customer’s property, and found multiple leaks in the evaporator coil and condenser.   On May 30, 2017, we were advised of the technician’s diagnosis, and approved the options of replacement, or cash out on our cost of the replacement.   On May 31, 2017, we called the customer, and provided their options.  The customer approved the non-covered costs, and we ordered the equipment to be shipped to the technician’s shop.   Almost two weeks later, we followed up on the replacement, and were advised by the technician that the equipment never arrived, and the manufacturer cancelled the order, claiming they called the technician and he did not respond.  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 Event(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 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 performed our duties under the contract, and cannot be held responsible for a failure on the part of a third party.    The equipment was received and installed on June 26, 2017.  The customer has requested to cancel their coverage.   Sincerely,   [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The events reported by the business are largely erroneous. For example, no maintenance service was ever received. The cancellation request was made by email to [redacted] on August 9th because no contract was received by email as promised on August 8th. 
I cannot accept a response until the full amount charged to my credit card is reversed, and future charges are stopped.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

June 9, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] VA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s rebuttal, and addressed the issue with them...

directly on June 6, 2017.  We apologize for any inconvenience suffered by the customer.     Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Services 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.
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]

August 17, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] Johnson GA[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and the equipment should...

be in the technician’s possession shortly, to complete the repair.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 3, 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.   HWA provided two technician’s that diagnosed the issue.  (The first technician could not address the issue, and the second found the detectors had been painted over, which would not be normal wear)  The customer disagreed with their diagnosis and requested we find another technician to diagnose.   We have since been looking for someone else to diagnose, and will continue to do so.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 28, 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 have contacted them directly with a...

microwave replacement option, to expedite the resolution of this issue.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 28, 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 rebuttal, and provide the following response.   It would seem the customer is now disputing the definition of the word ‘response’.  They are also making additional threats, in order to coerce a reimbursement of funds that they are not entitled to.   We consider this matter closed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

April 25, 2017   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer is providing his unsubstantiated opinion, suggesting a reason for the failure reported by the technician, then stating that the failure’ could’ be normal wear.  (which is again his unsubstantiated opinion, and not that of the technician. )   We refuse his repeated demand, and consider this issue closed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

October 13, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  TN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The repair has been authorized.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 21, 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 have addressed the...

issue with them directly.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

April 18, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: Rao TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response. ...

  On November 8, 2016, the  customer’s title company ordered a single warranty contract for two connected, but separate properties (at no point was this mentioned by title as a duplex, but six weeks later, the customer called looking for duplex pricing)   In January, 2017, the customer filed five claims, looking at failures at both property locations.   In February, 2017, it was determined that this was two separate properties, and we added the duplex coverage to the contract, requiring the customer to pay for the addition( as they had filed claims on both locations)  (Please note: the customer was never charged for this coverage, as they stated they only wished coverage to continue on a single location. )   In March 2017, the customer wanted the duplex coverage, and blamed the title company for not correctly processing the initial order  (he seemed confused,  thinking that the warranty was going to cover the contract payment for one of the units.). To our knowledge, the title company was sending us a check.   In April, 2017, the customer inquired about cancellation and then the check sent by title for the duplex coverage, which he then stated he no longer wants.  We are prepared to return the check to title when it is received.   The trade fee in question was addressed the day the claim was filed.   If the customer is looking to cancel the full contract, he can contact us directly, and the coverage will be cancelled per the contracts specifications.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling