Home Warranty of America

August 25, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] KS-[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

October 28, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Per contract, 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.”   We are not liable for the customer’s claims of additional damage.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

September 20, 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 the new board has been ordered, with the technician scheduling with the customer to install as soon as it is available.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

February 14, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  FL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   Having received additional information from the technician, we have contacted the customer directly to resolve the issue.  We are waiting for their response.     Sincerely,     [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 satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I am rejecting this response because: 1. The response to the claim was still beyond 38 hours. 2. The first technician wasted my $120 for 2 service calls that did not fix the problem. 3. The company is using a loophole to avoid fixing older AC units and Furnaces due to older systems. They call it a "modification", and the consumer has no idea when they sign up that all older systems will not be covered. I am still without AC or a furnace because they refused to repair what was wrong which was discovered by the 3rd technician, another $60.00 expense.  I have a doctorate degree, and never would have known about the exclusion they referenced as a means to avoid paying the claim. This practice is unethical and misleading and should be stopped.
Sincerely,
Iris [redacted]

The Below referenced e-mail was sent to the Revdex.com on 11-6-2015:"Esther, This now former customer has filed a complaint in reference to a
title company not receiving reimbursement for the customer’s cancelled
contract. Not only does this not make sense, as we would reimburse the
customer(not the...

place that sent us a check on their behalf), but also the check was issued to the customer 6 days before the complaint was filed.It almost seems like the customer is wanting us to pay twice,
but in any case, the complaint does not seem valid, as they requested to
cancel, and we paid the customer back the full cost of the contract in a
reasonable amount of time. Carl [redacted]

July 13, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted]  MN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s message, and have contacted them with the requested cash out amount.  We are waiting for their call back.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

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. Obviously HWA has response to their poor service and all the delays and lack of communication.The resolution was satisfactory once they dispatched the vendor to replace the AC but their response time was totally unsatisfactory.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Line Set Modifications for $125 -Per contract section V.E, “any modifications or upgrades necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment” are excluded. - These modifications are for R410 which the contract states as being included in section V.E.Electrical Modifications for $125- Per contract section V.E, “any modifications or upgrades necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment” are excluded.- These modifications were suggested by the contracted technician because he said the existing wiring would not "look as good" indicating a cosmetic preference of the contractor.- Further, any electrical issues that are not necessary should not be done- Further, any electrical problems should be covered under a separate section regarding ELECTRICAL SYSTEM in which All components and parts are INCLUDED.A New pad for $100-Per contract section V.E “All exterior condensing, cooling and pump pads” are excluded.- Per conversation with the contracted technician, he stated this was optional but suggested to better accommodate the next 20 years- I accept this proposal and am willing to pay the $100 for the optional padFurther, HWA has been non-responsive since Wed morning 8/16/2017.I have placed calls daily to discuss these items and the people answering the phone say they will send an email to the correct people in HWA and contact me to discuss the solution. The follow-up call never comes. I have called 1 to 3 times every business day since 8/16/2017 and no one has been able to discuss this issue. Everytime, they say they will send an email to the correct department but they cannot guarantee when they will call me back. You have forced all communication through Revdex.com. I find this highly unprofessional and discourteous. For this and all of the above reasons, I propose that HWA meet it's contractual obligations as stated above, cover all costs except the $100 pad modification, and also communicate with me directly to schedule the repair.Further, I request that HWA properly train it's call center personnel to be able to understand and discuss the items shown above because when I ask them what they are and why they are needed, they respond, "I don't know, I will have to send an email to the HWA team that knows". Further, I request that HWA stop using Revdex.com as it's customer service intermediary. All of this could have been handled through direct email or telephone conversation between HWA and me.Further, I request that HWA stop using a finger-pointing obfuscation approach of saying I need to talk to the contracted technician and then that contracted technician saying I need to discuss with HWA.Further, I request that HWA stop using a delay tactic trying to get inappropriate agreements, knowing that my AC is not working and slowing down the communication will possibly benefit HWA as they try to cheat me.HWA has acted extremely unprofessionally and I want an immediate turnaround in this behavior and I want my AC repaired.
Sincerely,
[redacted]Line Set Modifications for $125 -Per contract section V.E, “any modifications or upgrades necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment” are excluded.Electrical Modifications for $125- Per contract section V.E, “any modifications or upgrades necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment” are excluded.

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]

September 28, 2016   [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  GA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have...

received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response.   In June 2015, prior to their existing contract, the customer called our office, to discuss their ductwork, referencing an AC tuneup, where their technician noticed some issues with the ducts, and a need for ‘duct sealant’. No claim was filed by the customer’s at this time.   In September 2015, right before the contract expired, The customer e-mailed the same question about ‘duct sealant’. We called the customer back at that time, leaving a message to arrange for a claim to be filed.   On November 7, 2015, the customer renewed their contract, with lapse,  and immediately filed a claim on their ductwork.      On November 16, 2015, we confirmed the technician was scheduling the customer for service the following day.   On November 19 and November 20, 2015, we called the customer and left a message to confirm the service had occurred and the repair was complete.   On January 15, 2016, the customer called back, stating that they had gotten their own technician (we believe they were referring to the AC maintenance tech) and wanted the trade fee waived.   On January 28, 2016, the technician contacted us, advising that the customer was not returning their calls.   On February 16, 2016, the technician provided a diagnosis of the customer’s system. Per the information provided, several sections of the customer’s ducts were sealed with painters tape, rather than duct tape and the required mastic sealant, which is causing the customer to lose air from the ducts.  Per the warranty contract Section VII.J:   “HWA is not liable for repairs related to adequacy or capacity of appliances, components and systems in the home; improper installation, design or previous repair of appliances, components and systems: problems or failures caused by a manufacturer’s defect.”   The same day we called the customer and left a message to provide an update.   Almost a week later, the customer called back.  We advised him of the improper design/repair of the ducts and the missing sealant. He disagreed with the diagnosis, and insisted we send a second opinion at no cost . The second opinion also found the sealant missing, which was needed to properly seal the ductwork.   The warranty would not address the missing sealant.   Per the customer’s complaint, they paid the fee to their own technician, and no fees were paid for the technician’s sent.  We will not address the ducts that were never properly sealed.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

October 3, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted]: [redacted] UT-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   On September 19, 2017,  a home warranty was ordered from...

our company, on the customer’s newly purchased property.   This contract, which provides coverage for a majority of the appliances and systems in the home and requires all systems and components to be in proper working order, was purchased at a cost of $450.    Five days later, the customer noticed the pilot going out on their water heater.   On September 25, 2017, the customer filed a claim for their water heater.  Per contract, we assigned a technician to diagnose the failure.  The same day, a technician was onsite and reported that the customer’s 50 gallon 21 year old unit had a inoperative pilot light, that was no longer available.  The technician recommended that the unit be replaced.   Per contract section I.B.7:   “Covered System(s) and Component(s)” means (i)systems and components as specifically described herein as “Included” and that are located inside the confines of the main foundation of the Covered Property; (ii) are in proper working order on the Coverage Period Start Date and (iii) become inoperative due to normal wear and tear, including breakdowns due to insufficient maintenance if at the time the issue or breakdown was unknown. Components shall be considered in proper working order if no defect is known or would have been detectable by a visual inspection or mechanical test on the Coverage Period Start Date.”   As a pilot light would not go from proper working order to complete failure after only five days use, we requested the customer’s home inspection, to confirm proper working order, per contract section VI.A:    “If a Service Request is made pursuant to this Contract, 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.”   Per the inspection:   Under areas requiring further evaluation, it references the water heater, with the statement, “A 50 gallon, 38,000 BTU unit is installed, ANSI dated 1998, Typical life of a gas water heater in this area is approximately 8 - 12 years primarily related to the effects of hard water on these systems. Due to the age and condition of the installed unit, See Conditions section for further information. Consult with a licensed plumber for information on the serviceability of the functional components.” Recommend installation of an expansion tank or valve for added safety at the water heater. Units are cracking/popping when operating, consistent with a unit at/near the end of its useable life. Rust/corrosion noted at the tank and in the combustion chamber, unusual flame pattern noted - flame burns with a predominately yellow hue, indicators consistent with a unit in need of service. Recommend consulting a qualified professional for further evaluation of the entire system and any maintenance or corrective options.   Thus, the inspector recognized signs of failure with the existing unit, and required/strongly recommended the further evaluation of the water heater prior to closing.  This was not done.  Had this occurred, the failure with the water heater would have been detectable, as it was by the technician six days after closing.    We are sorry, but we will not replace the customer’s water heater that was not in proper working order.    Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

October 17, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: Te MO-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The refund the customer is requesting is for the maintenance of his...

tankless water heater, which is not eligible under contract.   As the customer has cancelled his coverage, as a courtesy, we are providing him a full refund of the contract cost.  We will not reimburse his water heater maintenance costs.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

June 7, 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 complaint, and provide the following response....

  On May 24, 2017,  at 5:24 PM, the customer opened a claim for their heating system .  Per contract, we assigned a technician, to diagnose the failure.   On May 26, 2017, we received the technician’s diagnosis, that the customers 4 ton, 70% gas furnace had a cracked heat exchanger and was extremely over sized for the home.  The unit  failed due to age/normal wear.   This created a problem, because:   Per contract, section V.C, the warranty excludes improperly sized units .   Per contract section  VII.I “Parts and replacements will be of similar or equivalent quality and efficiency to those being replaced subject to all other provisions, limitations and exclusions in this Contract.”   So, though the unit failed due to normal wear (which is eligible), we could not replace a unit that was not properly sized for the home.   Our only option was to provide the customer a check for our cost on the replacement, Per section VII.O, which was done.   We are not offering the customer a refund of their trade service fee, which was paid to the technician.  If the customer is requesting to cancel the coverage, that is their prerogative.   Based on cancellation procedure in contract section VIII.E, the fact that the contract cost is $500.00,  and that the customer  was just paid $517.00, there would be no refund remaining to provide to the customer.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Services HWA Claims Handling Manager

January 4, 2016 Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: 1021291: Heath  OK-479152 Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s...

complaint and provide the following response. Per the Contract, Section VI.E, (septic tank pumping) excluded: “The cost of gaining or finding access to the septic tank - the cost of sewer hook ups - Disposal of waste - Chemical treatments – Tanks - Leach lines - Cesspools - Mechanical pumps/systems.” The technician charged $45.00 to dig up the lid for the tank, to be able to pump the waste from the tank. The explanation for this charge was referenced on the customer’s invoice. This was in addition to the $100.00 trade fee that was assessed to the customer.  Procedurally, the technician should have advised us or the customer of this charge, prior to moving forward with this issue.  We cannot address whether this was done or not, but the lid needed to be accessed to pump the tank. We are not liable for the access cost, and will not reimburse the customer the cost to access the tank to pump the waste. Sincerely, Carl Hewelt Escalated Special Handling

November 8, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611     Re: [redacted] IL-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer has received the licensed and insured technician’s diagnostic information, stating that their unit did not fail due to normal wear.   It is the customer that is looking for a different diagnosis, and they should pay for said diagnosis    The customer is responsible for a trade service fee, and per their statement it was paid.  This does not mean that the warranty will pay for all subsequent fees, until the customer us satisfied with the technician’s diagnostic/repair.   The warranty will not pay for additional diagnoses, and will not discuss any possible technician reimbursement unless the customer provides a diagnosis from a licensed technician that supports their position.       Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

June 26, 2017   [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  provide the following...

response.    On March 11, 2016, the customer opened a thirteen month warranty with our company.   On April 12, 2016, The customer reported a claim for a water softener.  They advised that they bought salt, and when they plugged it in to use it, it did not work (Thus, the unit never worked properly under the contract period).  Per our contractual agreement, we sent a technician to diagnose the unit.   Per their diagnosis, the units control valve was completely seized, on a water softener that had been obsolete for over 10 years. Per contract section I.A.2:   “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.”   And contract section ‘1.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 the unit never worked properly under the contract, we requested a copy of the customer’s inspection, to confirm that the unit had worked properly at the time of inspection, and could then be covered as an unknown pre-existing condition.   The customer never provided the requested inspection.   On April 11, 2017, the customer’s contract expired.   On May 23, 2017, the customer renewed the contract with a six week lapse, creating a new coverage period start date.   Twelve days later, the customer reported that the prior day, the Air Conditioning unit was not cooling properly. We assigned a technician to diagnose the system.   Per the technician, the air conditioning unit was completely empty of refrigerant, from leaks in the condenser and coil.  As the unit would not have developed multiple leaks and run dry of Freon in twelve days, the unit was not in proper working order on the coverage period start date, and would not be covered under contract.   As a courtesy to the customer, we will provide them a refund of the two payments made for this year’s coverage, upon receipt of their request to cancel the contract, so they can use those funds to address the Air conditioning unit that was not in proper working order.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 1, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  TN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer’s contract was set to auto renew.  He claims...

that it was not.supposed to be set that way   We have received their request and are expediting their refund.   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 under the assumption we actually get our 450 dollars as promised
Sincerely,
[redacted]