Home Warranty of America

April 18, 2016 [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611 Re: [redacted]: [redacted] FL-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: We have received the customer’s rebuttal and are providing the following response. The customer is now claiming the technician did not provide them the same diagnosis that they provided our office. We cannot address this information, except by stating that we can and did review the technician’s call, to confirm the information that the technician provided our office.   (As the customer has already stated our representative said something they did not, we are unsure how to take their claim of what another party has stated. ) Since the customer has already replaced the system, we cannot send a technician to re-evaluate the unit and confirm the diagnosis,   Therefore, the diagnosis received that this unit failed due to not normal wear is the only diagnosis that we can address, which is not covered under the contract. (We can only assume that in the customer’s response, when they state that their sprinkler system is “definitely pointing to the AC unit.”, was a typographical error, and not confirming the diagnosis they are disputing) Sincerely, [redacted] Escalated Special Handling

May 17, 2017   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]: [redacted] CA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response....

  On October 7, 2017, the customer opened a warranty with our company.   On April 24, 2017,  the customer reported that their tenant was having  an Air Conditioning issue, stating  he property was not being cooled.  Per Contract, we immediately sent a technician to diagnose the unit.     On April 27, 2017, the technician reported that they found loose connections, and repaired the issue.   About a week later, the customer reported that the unit was still not working properly, since the vendor came out.  We sent a second opinion, at no fee due, to diagnose.   Per the second opinion, the 13-15 year old [redacted] unit :   has +1/4" line installed (factory calls for 3/8 liquid line) has a bypassed time delay (improper repair) the outdoor unit is not level;(the tenant re-leveled unit himself) sign of refrigerant leak at suction line fitting; 40 amp circuit keeps tripping; run load amps is well below average; with a weak breaker.   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 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 most of these issues would not occur due to normal wear, which is required per our contract, we requested the customer’s inspection to confirm the unit was in proper working order.   Per the inspection, the inspector recommended an evaluation of the unit, to correct a number of issues, including the leveling of the unit by an HVAC professional which was not done.   As the unit was not in proper working order, we would not address the replacement under contract.   Sincerely, [redacted] DE Services HWA Claims Handling Manager

July 8, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]  MI-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We do not know if there are funds outstanding and are processing the cancellation as previously stated.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:How do we further escalate this issue?  I'm not asking to replace a part that is not faulty.  I'm asking to replace a part that is faulty and could lead to mechanical failure
Sincerely,
[redacted]

October 4, 2017     [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 the customer’s inquiry and provide the...

following explanation.   There have been four technician’s assigned to the customer’s Refrigerator claim, since it was opened online, on the afternoon of Sunday, September 24, 2017:   The initial technician diagnosed a sealed system failure, which they are unable to address. The second technician could address the failure, but scheduling difficulties, made their service impossible. The third technician was assigned, but declined to take sealed system  call at time of service. And now we have a technician assigned who is aware of the issue, and willing to address the compressor replacement.   We apologize for the delay.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

August 8, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  [redacted] CA-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   The customer received a response from myself on August 1, 2016 and their cancellation is in procvss.     Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I still haven't received a phone call explaining anything.  Being a real estate agent, I will be sure that no one in our office ever uses or refers your company again.  This company is such a scam.  I have read through the contract and see no place that it is stated that grout or sealing is excluded, no place that states the pan is excluded from coverage.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

August 12, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] MN-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and their...

compressor(which was under manufacturer warranty, was replaced earlier this week.   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

June 16, 2017   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006  Chicago, IL  60611   Re: 12200209: Cano NC-2239520   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint, and provide the following response....

  On May 2, 2016, the customer opened a thirteen month warranty with our company. This warranty expired on June 2, 2017.   On June 9, 2017, the customer called our office wanting us to reimburse her for an AC repair she performed outside of the warranty contract.   Per our contractual agreement:   ·        Section III.A: “You or Your agent (including tenant if specifically authorized by the Home Owner) must notify HWA for Service Requests to be performed under this Contract as soon as the problem is discovered. HWA will accept Service Requests 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year at 1-888-HWA-RELY or online at www.HWAHomeWarranty.com. To be covered, notice must be given to HWA prior to expiration of this 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”   We received no call from the customer, prior to June 9, 2017, referencing an AC failure and no claim was filed by the customer reporting an AC issue.  We did not approve the customer to contact any technician, nor did we approve any technician to replace her evaporator coil.    Thus, we decline her demand for $1,650.00 for a coil replacement performed outside the contract without our approval.     Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

June 23, 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 rebuttal, and provide the following response.   As the contract states. In section I.B.7:   “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 are saying that the defect with the unit would have been detectable by visual inspection or mechanical test on the coverage period start date.   We appreciate the fact that the customer only wants us to pay the labor for the Builder’s technicians, who addressed the replacement under the manufacturers warranty, but we are not liable for any costs on this failure, as it would have been detectable on May 21, 2016.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The requirement that I replace the internal unit PRIOR to the external unit being replaced was not addressed until I received a call from the office of the president of HWA on 2/23/18, only AFTER I filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. I was told numerous times by customer service at HWA that the external unit would be replaced, but the internal wouldn't. That was all. On numerous occasions, I asked why they were willing to replace a portion of a system knowing the back-up unit would not communicate if it was, because that made absolutely no sense to me, and HWA's customer service told me because "that's what your policy covers". They never clearly expressed that I needed to replace the internal unit FIRST. I was lead to believe that they were not interested in whether the whole system would work, just that they would replace the broken part. HWA didn't even contact the manufacturer to confirm the units wouldn't communicate until I prompted them to do so. I have spent over a month in the dead of winter calling HWA on 20+ occasions, and HWA has done nothing to ensure the appropriate steps be taken to triage this claim in an efficient and timely manner. Whenever I called or was called back by a manager, the representation from HWA knew no information about my claim, and I repeatedly had to update them (even though every phone call was documented by HWA) on where things stood and was never given any resolution/solution. The main issues of concern that are not being taken into consideration are as follows: 1. The warranty contract (WHICH I NEVER WAS GIVEN A COPY OF PRIOR TO PURCHANSING THIS POLICY and still to date have not received) contains fine print that no consumer would understand (information which one of HWA's employee customer service agents even admitted to me he also did not understand). 2. The warranty falsely advertises that they cover "pre-existing conditions" and "heating systems". The word "system" is defined as 'a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole'. HWA should be replacing the system as promised in their advertising. (Of note, I was also convinced to buy additional coverage (over $200) the day I filed the initial claims (3 in total), which I was assured would now cover everything after 30 days.) 3. The HVAC technician recommended by HWA did not fully inspect the internal unit when they were at my home assessing the external unit. They internal unit "appeared to be running" and HWA considers that a sufficiently functioning heat system. My partner and I have a neutral party HVAC company that specializes in our particular heating system (not referred by HWA) scheduled to come and assess the auxiliary heating unit tomorrow (2/27/18). We will be forwarding their findings along to HWA's claim department. (In a separate claim we filed with HWA, we found out the electrician they referred us never pulled the appropriate permits needed to fix what they did, and now the town is getting involved and plans to come inspect our home. HWA does not make sure the workers they recommend follow necessary regulations to do the work they do which is very unsettling from a consumer standpoint.)4. The communication skills on HWA's behalf are severely lacking. Based on my review of their response to this complaint, their documentation does not accurately reflect the correspondence actually occurring between the consumer and their representatives. Their customer service representatives do not accurately explain the coverage consumers are being provided or why coverage is being denied, which prevents the consumer from having adequate information to proceed with measures on their end in a timely fashion. My heating bill for January was $650 because the current heating system is dysfunctional and I have been waiting for updates from HWA.5. It is my belief that HWA has no interest in doing their due diligence, and I feel like the burden has been and still is entirely on me as a consumer throughout this process to figure out the appropriate steps that should be taken in regards to repairing my heating system. Regardless of what HWA's transcript document claim was discussed, I would suggest the president's office review the recorded conversations that took place throughout my correspondence with HWA. It will be VERY apparent where their company was lacking and why I am escalating this concerning matter. Consumers deserve better than this. I am currently in the process of acquiring legal council to assist me in dealing with HWA moving forward.
Sincerely,
Arielle [redacted]

August 2, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  [redacted] NC-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s complaint and are providing...

the following response.   On the evening of June 3, 2016, the customer filed a Refrigerator claim, stating their unit had no power. We assigned a technician, per our contractual agreement,     On June 6, 2016,  the technician advised that a power surge damaged a circuit board, and may have damaged a control board.  Per our 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, …, electrical failure or surge,… “   At that time, the technician also gave us the part numbers, with which we determined that the unit was repairable.    On June 9, we advised the customer that the issue would not be covered, due to the diagnosed surge, but when the customer requested that we re-evaluate the issue, we determined that we could address the repair.    When we advised we could address the repair, the customer told us they had already replaced their unit.   We offered them our cost on the repair, and even added additional funds to that cost, which the customer accepted to resolve the issue, as of yesterday   Sincerely,   [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

June 16, 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 the issue in question was addressed...

with the customer directly on June 12, 2017.       Sincerely,     [redacted] Office of the President

July 7, 2016   [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] OK-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   This issue is not in reference to $1,000.00 worth of Polybutelene piping.   This issue is in reference to an inaccessible broken pipe in a floor and is addressed by the Contractual limitation:   “HWA will pay no more than $1,000 for diagnosis, repair or replacement of any Covered System and Component that is concrete encased or otherwise inaccessible.”   We have paid for the diagnostic, and are providing the customer the remaining cap.   Sincerely,     [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

February 23, 2018     Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006    Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted] MA-3294478     Dear Ms. [redacted]:   We have received the customer’s inquiry and...

provide the following explanation.   On December 29, 2017, the customer opened a 13-month warranty with our company.   On January 8, 2018, the customer filed a claim on an Heating system that was not working properly.   On January 19, 2018, we were advised by the technician assigned to service the customer’s unit, that the customer’s Heat pump condenser (the external component of their HVAC system) had failed, and needed to be replaced.  On that date, we were advised that her inside unit (air handler) that had not failed, would not work with the replacement unit, and needed to be upgraded to match the new unit.  That date, we contacted the customer, and explained that the warranty would address the external replacement, but the internal unit would need to be upgraded to match the external unit at the customer’s cost.  The customer requested a supervisor call, which was returned the following day, with a message being left for the customer.   Two days later, the customer called our office and was advised that we could also provide a cash out, of our cost on the eligible replacement (the external unit that failed).   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.”   The customer’s heat pump system has become inoperative, with the specific failure being the condenser component of the system.   ·        Section V.A: “Except as noted above or when the optional SEER/R-410A modifications coverage is included in Platinum and Diamond Plans, HWA will not pay for any modifications or upgrades necessitated by the repair of existing equipment or the installation of new equipment “   The warranty will address the failed condenser component, but not the needed upgrade to their air handler necessitated by the installation of the new equipment.   ·        Section VII.Q: “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 Systems and Components.”   As the warranty cannot install the condenser component, without the customer paying for the internal upgrade to match the condenser, if the customer declines to pay for the internal upgrade, the warranty will provide a check for our actual cost of the external condenser component replacement.   We apologize for any confusion in the providing of this information.  The customer is now aware of the options, and we await their decision to pay for the upgraded Air Handler or accept our check for the cost of the Condenser   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] Office of the President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because the company have already confirmed their responsibility in this case.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Unfortunately I must say that the statement that we rejected the first technician is a lie. We have had more than 5 technicians coming to us. We have not declined single technician assigned to us.it is correct that we have found a technician who maybe able to fix it (we were surprised that we were able to find someone when home warranty as a company could not find a capable technician). However this technician used to work as an official vendor for home warranty and now he does not and he is so upset with home warranty that unless home warranty calls him the refrigerator will not get repaired because apparently home warranty has a rule that if we find our own technician he still has to get in touch with them to get approval. Obviously someone who worked with home warranty and now does not and is so disgruntled by them that they do not even want to call home warranty goes to show the level of satisfaction that home warranty keeps on any end.I also have difficulty agreeing that home warranty believes that they are not responsible to replace the appliance if the appliance cannot be fixed.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

September 12, 2016   Lucille [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 330 North Wabash, Suite 2006            Chicago, IL  60611   Re: [redacted]:  Gray TX-[redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   As the...

customer was advised the day this complaint was filed, we are doing what we can to expedite the refunds.   Per their request for additional funds, Per contract:   “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.”   The customer states her company did not charge a ‘trade call fee’, but they did charge her for the repairs.  Per contract, the customer will pay the contract’s $70.00 trade fee or the cost of service, whichever is less.   Sincerely,   Carl [redacted] DE Svcs HWA Claims Handling Manager

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The techician stated that the unit cannot keep up with the heat and constantly running and the temperature inside the house is well over 86 degrees while the thermostat is set at 70 Degrees. So how is that considers to be " working properly "? In addition, it is causing health problems to the members of the family who has asthma. The insurance company never got back with is to tell us the outcome of the visit and  they stated( when they contacted us initially) that we can bring HVAC tech of our choice and not  bringing their own HVAC technicians who are either do not anything and then do not respond if there is a follow up is needed or do not do wjat they supposed to do. In our opinion the company contracts with companies who are cheap and do not know their jobs just like the company its self. Very unprofessional and trying to buy time before our contracts runs out. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I reject HWA's use of Under The Contract as an excuse. Under the contract SERVICE CALLS B.- HWA will dispatch service requests to an authorized Repair Technician within 48 hours. To claim they satisfied this condition by finding a technician on the 11th of May, when I notified them on the 1st of May, is not living up to the contract that they like to quote in response. Also, to have a representative tell me that I should find a technician myself (it's not in the contract, for me to do their job)) & then pay the full price of repair myself (with the possibility of reimbursement), that is not by the contract, which states- $100.00 or Actual cost of service, whichever is less. I reject HWA's using the excuse of not in the contract, when they can't seem to go by it themselves. Why they would want to have a dissatisfied customer over a mere $200 request to be reimbursed for their share ( when I'm sure they know they made the mistake), that makes no sense to me. I bought the most basic $300 washer from Lowe's home center and think it's not to much for them to do the right thing. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]