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]

January 18, 2016 Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted] WI-2197417 Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s response. The customer has not provided the requested information from the inspection of the unit.  We are not looking for what he states the inspector informed him of. The technician that inspected his unit found signs of long term leakage.  We did not state the customer reported leakage in our initial response.. We have no information about the customers allegations of misrepresentation by the real estate agency, nor does the customer support this allegation.  We also have an established history of covering claims, and the funds to do so.  It would seem that the customer is looking at 3rd party websites, which show either unverified customer complaints, or complaints that we have addressed.  They do not show the hundreds of thousands of covered claims, because people do not complain about them. The customer alleges that the diagnosis of the unit created a dangerous situation, but their inspection from prior to closing, advises that the unit was a safety hazard before the technician even came to the home.. The technician calls our office to provide their diagnosis of the unit, which they did.  We did not hang up on the technician.  It is not the customer’s prerogative to advise our office when we have the information needed to decide whether a claim is covered.   Per the technician, it is a safety issue for the venting to be installed through the side of the house for a conventional heater.  The vent should have been installed through the roof.  From no demand, the customer  is now demanding the cost of a replacement unit, a refund of his ‘tip’ to the technician, and an apology.  We have made our only offer in reference to this issue, and consider it closed, unless he provides the remainder of the inspection document, or a request to Cancel the Contract that he claims was misrepresented. Sincerely, Carl [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

November 29, 2017     [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] OH-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer’s contract states we will dispatch a service request to an Authorized Repair Technician in 48 hours. It does not say we will dispatch a vendor in 48 hours.    The customer statement that we did not make reasonable efforts to secure a vendor is blatantly false.   The customer stated his basement was flooding when he advised us of the claim.   We are not responsible, per contract, for a customer’s property damage, or damage caused because an eligible item doesn’t work.    We have read the customer’s correspondence, and even though we know his insurance is not addressing the damage, that does not change the offer that was made previously.   We communicated clearly with this customer, his claim for damaged property is not legitimate, and he reported his failure with his sump pump as his basement was flooding, providing us no time to address the failure of his sump pump.   We are not paying the customer’s damages and consider this matter closed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

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

resolved with the customer the day this complaint was filed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

May 5, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted] LA-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s complaint and have addressed the issue directly with the...

customer and technician. Sincerely, [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

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.

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

equipment to the technician to address the repair.      Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Please note date of Sept 26th !! As if, hey, they performed. Our claim was called in on Aug 27th. Over a month for a simple repair to our AC-- install another compressor. Had they a humane policy in place for AC repair during a heat wave, their vendor could have gotten the compressor here in town and installed it the next day, the third day of the heat wave. Instead, HWA chose a bizarre and rather deadly approach to our dilemma, no AC for over a month. For no reason other than mismanagement, poor data base tracking, inattentive call center clerks, antiquated policies requiring shipping of parts across the country when the part was available locally, inability to communicate with the chosen vendor, and stonewalling by management. It is our position that this company feels no particular accountability to consumers that they have contracted with, in our case, for years. When it came to taking our money every year, no problem. When it came to helping us for a simple repair, big problem
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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

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]

October 20, 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 inquiry, and provide the...

following response.   We are sorry to hear that the customer and vendor assigned has difficulty in establishing an appointment.  Understanding how this could occur, we offered the customer the option to get their own technician, to expedite the issue.    Per their contract, section III.E:   “You will pay the Trade Call Fee or the actual cost of the Services covered under this Contract, whichever is less. The Trade Call Fee is for each visit by an Authorized Repair Technician, except as noted below, and is payable to the Authorized Repair Technician at the time of each visit.”   We understand that the customer contacted their own technician, but they are still responsible for paying the trade fee required per contract, and this will not be reimbursed.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

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 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

January 30, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: 11951745 : Buckner IN-2343472   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following...

response.   On May 6, 2017, the customer opened a contract with Home Warranty of America.    On or around October 17, 2016, upon the initial use of the heat, the customer called a company for maintenance, who noticed a mechanical failure with his heating system.    On October 24, 2016, the customer filed a claim with us, advising that a problem was noticed with the furnace the prior week, and the furnace has never worked properly under contract. Per our agreement, we assigned a technician, to determine the failure with the furnace.   As it would appear that scheduling difficulties occurred between the initial technician and the customer, we assigned a second opinion, at no fee, to provide a diagnosis. Per the second opinion, there were numerous cracks in the furnace’s heat exchanger, which would not have occurred in a few days use under the contract.  Per 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 break downs due to insufficient maintenance if at the time the issue or break down 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, to confirm the unit was in proper working order.  Per the inspection, performed on April 4, 2016:   “Fuel Furnace: Last service date is over one year ago, or is unable to be determined. Although this unit appears to be operating properly from controls, there are areas which cannot be seen without specialized equipment and training. One such area is the combustion chamber / heat exchanger where cold air blows across the "fire box", becoming the hot air that circulates throughout your home. During the life span of any furnace, this metal wall may develop a crack or a broken weld, allowing carbon monoxide to circulate throughout the home. This is why furnace specialists recommend a complete inspection annually; consider having unit inspected by certified HVAC technician.”   As the inspector recommended further inspection by a certified HVAC technician, and such a visual inspection of the heat exchanger would have detected the mechanical failure of the unit, we would not address the replacement.   The customer has requested to cancel their contract, and we are addressing any reimbursement for the requested cancellation.  We would not reimburse $4000, for a unit that never worked properly under contract.  Sincerely,     Carl [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

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

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

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

response.   Per our contract, Section VIII.E:   “If HWA cancels this Contract or if You cancel this Contract after the first 30 days of the Coverage Period then You shall be entitled to a pro rata refund of the paid Contract fee for the unexpired term, less an administrative fee of the lesser or $30 or 10% of the Contract fee (unless otherwise required by state law), and any actual service costs incurred by HWA;”   The existing contract period goes from August 25, 2015, to September 25, 2016, which was purchased at a cost of $460.00.   The unexpired term of the contract, on the date their cancellation request was received (August 16, 2016), was just over a month.  (approximately $35.00)   We have paid over $1,600.00, on the customer’s behalf, in service costs for plumbing repairs and a replacement water heater.   The customer is not entitled to a refund of any portion of the $460.00 paid for their contract, even if we allowed them to cancel the coverage in April, 2016,due to what we paid in service costs on the customer's behalf.   Sincerely,     [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

January 22, 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 are providing the following response. On November 9, 2015, the customer purchased our Gold 13 month warranty. On November 24, 2015, the customer called our office, and after reviewing our coverage, increased his coverage to the Diamond level, and added the optional coverage of Green Plus.  At the time of the call he advised that he had a Hot Tub/Spa, and was looking to add coverage. Per our Contract, section VI.A: “IN GROUND OR BUILT INTO A PATIO OR DECK POOL AND/OR SPA EQUIPMENT” On this call, the customer never mentioned that his spa/hot tub was a portable unit, and when the statement was made about the unit being ‘in the deck’, the customer did not correct the representative. On the second call, when he purchased the coverage, he advised that it was outside and above ground, but did not advise us that it was a portable (not built in) unit. As a courtesy, we have refunded the cost of the coverage to his credit card, but as a technician came out and provided a diagnosis of the unit for his trade fee, it will not be refunded.    Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

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

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]