National Home Insurance Company

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The companies response is bogus and they know it They are attempting to use legal jargon to avoid doing what they know is correct and right They know very well that the floor repair will fall under foreseeable circumstances which under the law states the following : ForeseeabilityThe facility to perceive, know in advance, or reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions.In the law of Negligence, the foreseeability aspect of proximate cause—the event which is the primary cause of the injury—is established by proof that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence and circumspection, should reasonably have foreseen that his or her negligent act would imperil others, whether by the event that transpired or some similar occurrence, and regardless of what the actor surmised would happen in regard to the actual event or the manner of causation of injuriesforeseeabilitynreasonable anticipation of the possible results of an action, such as what may happen if one is negligent or consequential damages resulting a from breach of a contract I have already contacted my attorney and will be moving for with my lawsuit I will see you in court Sincerely, [redacted] ***

It appears that the homeowners have rejected the monetary offer made by NHIC A copy of the release has been requested and I will send that directly to them They again request that NHIC repair the defect or a court action is threatened We must respectfully decline making repairs as this claim has been released and any problems with the repair is the responsibility of the repair contractor as we have stated before The warranty provides a dispute resolution process for any disagreement and that is through mandatory and binding arbitration Thus if suit is initiated we will compel the matter to arbitration and any costs incurred will be sought in arbitration If there are any questions regarding this, please let me know.Sincerely, [redacted]

I have reviewed the complaint that has been filed by these homeowners regarding a claim that they originally filed with National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group) (NHIC) in With this response let me add some important details with respect to what is now being claimed The original claim involved movement of a deck which supported a column that in turn supported a roof structure above NHIC originally accepted the claim as being covered under the warranty and asked the homeowners to obtain a bid for the repair They were not able to produce a bid and they asked if we knew of a contractor who did this type of work We had worked with a contractor named RMC in the past and they had done credible work.RMC agreed to go to the site and provide a bid which they did to repair the deck foundation They submitted a bid which totaled $5, This was based on a method of repair that they proffered and represented would correct the problem NHIC was concerned that the cost was excessive and informed the homeowner however the homeowner opted to use this contractor and the repair that they offered The warranty on the home allows NHIC to pay for a repair, hire a contractor to perform the repair or replace the defect Since the homeowners insisted on using RMC, NHIC sent a release which released all further responsibility of NHIC for this defect in exchange for the payment of the amount of the bid by RMC The homeowners signed the release, accepted the payment and hired RMC to do the work NHIC has no further responsibility for this claim as we have paid a reasonable cost to perform a covered repair NHIC did not design or approve the repair NHIC did not guarantee the outcome of the repair When the money was paid for the repair NHIC had no control over the repairs and the homeowner specifically released NHIC from any further responsibility RMC is not NHIC's contractor and was not controlled by NHIC If there are any problems with this repair the homeowner should take that up with RMC whom they hired to do the fix If there is a disagreement with any aspect of any claim by the homeowner with NHIC the warranty calls for binding arbitration This is the course the homeowner may take if they disagree with our position We are sorry we are not able to help however NHIC has met its contractual obligation with the payment of the claim If you have questions regarding this, please let me know [redacted] Claim Technical ManagerNational Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group) (NHIC)

I received the complaint filed by [redacted] regarding the warranty claim filed on his home located at [redacted] ** This will be the response of the warranty insurer, [redacted] ***, (***) It appears that there are two major concerns that [redacted] *** has regarding the claim The first is he is requesting that the warranty insurer pay for the upgraded wood floor that apparently is the surface on top of the wood framing structural portion of his home that has sustained damage and qualifies for coverage under the warranty The second issue is that he is concerned that if a release is signed and he has the work done and it does not pass the engineer inspection then his rights would not be protected.In order to address these concerns, it is important to understand that the claim that [redacted] has filed is governed by the contract document that the builder placed on his home A copy of that document which is the HBW warranty, 2/20/version should have been provided to [redacted] at the time he purchased the home If he does not have a copy of the warranty we can send him a copy When a claim meets the criteria for coverage, as a portion of the floor framing did in [redacted] ***'s home, the warranty specifies how the claim is to be resolved On page of the warranty under "Repair" is stated that the Builder or Warranty Insurer shall have the option to repair, replace, or pay the reasonable cost of repair of any covered defect or structural defect The design, method and manner of the repair is at the discretion of the Builder or the Warranty insurer It also states that the homeowner is responsible for any damage to any improvement, fixture or property not constructed by the Builder which is damaged by or during the repair of a covered defect or structural defect.With respect to the wood flooring that is supported by the structural framing that is the covered element in this claim, we understand that this is not part of the original product installed by the builder but is an upgrade that the homeowner installed As such it is considered to be a part of the home that is not the builder's work and would not be covered [redacted] will pay for the cost of restoring the original flooring, which we understand to be carpet, but not for the upgraded wood floor Regarding the other concern or the homeowner receiving a cash amount and signing a release for the claim, if [redacted] dictates the type of repair and has it inspected by an engineer to verify that the repair is done properly, then NHIC will be responsible to make sure the repair was done properly, if the homeowner had a contractor that followed the plan and had the designated engineer perform the inspection If the homeowner does not follow the plan, or implements another method of repair or does not have the proper inspections done by the designated engineer then there is no responsibility on the part of ***I do not believe that a final agreement and release has been entered into on this claim but these principles discussed above would be what the release would entail I am sorry that we are not able to pay for the upgraded floor however the warranty terms do not allow us to do so As far as being protected in the claim, [redacted] will have all the protection necessary under the law and the contract If there are questions regarding this, he can let me know [redacted] Claim Technical Manager [redacted] ***

It appears that the homeowners have rejected the monetary offer made by NHIC. A copy of the release has been requested and I will send that directly to them. They again request that NHIC repair the defect or a court action is threatened. We must respectfully decline making repairs as this claim has been released and any problems with the repair is the responsibility of the repair contractor as we have stated before. The warranty provides a dispute resolution process for any disagreement and that is through mandatory and binding arbitration. Thus if suit is initiated we will compel the matter to arbitration and any costs incurred will be sought in arbitration. If there are any questions regarding this, please let me know.Sincerely,*** ***

I have reviewed the recent comments by the homeowner and must clear up some of the information given. First, NHIC has the option under the warranty on a covered claim to perform the repair, pay a reasonable cost for the repair or replace the defect. In this claim NHIC chose to pay a fair market value of a repair fix based on a bid provided by a local contractor, RMC. NHIC did not pay an engineer for a plan of repair, nor were they obligated to do so. NHIC did not tell the homeowner they had to use RMC to do the repair, nor to repair it in the manner RMC specified. We do not guarantee repairs, we are not obligated to. In addition to this NHIC never had a contract with RMC to perform these repairs. Any contract for this work would have been between the homeowners and RMC, not NHIC. The only connection that NHIC has with RMC is that we knew of them and that they provided a bid for the repair. Any problem with the repairs is between the homeowner and the contractor, not NHIC. If the contractor is not responding to a problematic repair then it appears to me that the homeowners should be filing a complaint against them with the Revdex.com, not NHIC.National Home Insurance Company is not responsible to educate the homeowners as to structural repairs in the home and only would have a responsibility for the outcome of the repairs if we designed and implemented these repairs which we did neither. Also as we have stated before, the homeowners signed a release for the cash payment. This release absolved NHIC and the builder from any liability from this claim. The statement that they did not understand the release now comes over years after the claim was settled. If they did not understand it and were so concerned about the outcome of the repair, why was this not raised at the time NHIC made the cash offer? The release language is clear and is not ambiguous. The homeowners make the statement that it was all "smoke and mirrors" and that there was an intent on the part of NHIC to deceive them on this release. This statement is completely and has no substance whatsoever.In our last response to the initial complaint, NHIC discussed that all disagreements that are not able to be resolved can be heard in final and binding arbitration. This option is still available to these homeowners. However in a good faith effort to conclude this matter, and avoid the time and expense of an arbitration proceeding, NHIC is willing to make a one time cash offer of $1,500.00. NHIC is not interested in performing a repair. This will also require the signing of a release. If the homeowners are in agreement with this compromised settlement, I would suggest that they run the release by legal counsel in order to make sure that it is well understood and that their rights are protected. If they are not in agreement then they can file for arbitration and we can have an independent third party determine which position is correct. Sincerely,*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: $is nowhere near enough to fix the ongoing (and constantly worsening) problem with our foundation, which we trusted NHIC to fix, and which is still not fixedWe did file a Revdex.com complaint against RMC, but they have failed to respondThey have been unresponsive in every other way, alsoIt seems they took the money and ranNHIC remains our only hope to resolve this problem outside of the court system.We ask NHIC to provide us with a copy of the release form they say we signed, since we have no recollection of signing it, nor do we believe we would have knowingly signed a release that would "absolve" NHIC and the builder of all responsibility for this repair. We ask NHIC to force RMC to provide a permanent fix to our structural defect, at no cost to us Failing that, we ask NHIC to hire a competent and trustworthy contractor to complete the fix, at no cost to us.I am attaching the engineer's drawing of our column showing its (lack of) structural support, along with the engineer's full report, so that NHIC can provide us with a solid solution
Sincerely,
*** *** *** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/17) */
National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group) (NHIC) has received the above complaint with respect to a structural defect claim that was filed by this homeowner. In reading through the complaint it appears that the homeowner is not...

in agreement with the claim determination made by NHIC, as the claim did not qualify for coverage.
In order to explain the claim and the associated determination I believe it is important to discuss the warranty program and coverage. This product is a home warranty, not an insurance policy. The warranty was purchased by the builder of the home and placed on the home by the builder at the time of the sale. The warranty is insurance backed by NHIC. The warranty provides coverage for structural defects for 10 years from the warranty inception. In order for the coverage to apply, the defects must meet the definition of structural defect in the warranty document. In summary that definition is that there must be actual physical damage to a designated load-bearing element that is caused by the failure of that element that creates an unsafe, unsanitary or otherwise unlivable condition in the home. The damage must be of a catastrophic degree. This is a definition that is taken from the Code of Federal Regulations and used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The defects that were reported were a large, 2" - 3" crack in the garage slab at least 21 feet long as well as bricks separating and drywall cracks and nail pops. There was also a cracked door frame and tile cracks.
When NHIC received the claim we hired a state licensed engineering firm, GHD to inspect the damage and issue a report. They inspected the damage on July 7, 2015. What they found was a crack in the garage floor which was 1/4" to 3/8" wide and diselvated up to 1/4". They also found hairline width cracks in sections of some drywall. There was a separation and an offset of the door casing at the southeast bedroom closet. However the door jambs were plumb and the header was approximately level. There was a latch problem with the laundry room door but the jambs were plumb and the header level. There was a hairline width crack in a piece of floor tile in the laundry room with no diselevation of the crack. A few nail pops in the laundry room, bedroom and living room ceilings. In addition to this there was a loss of mortar or separation between the brick step and concrete floor slab and 3/32" wide stair-step cracks in an isolated section of the exterior brick near the garage opening.
In our discussions with the engineer it was apparent that with the exception of the garage floor, the damages that were viewed were not the result of the failure of a load-bearing element but are material shrinkage cracks and result from changes in temperature and humidity. None of these are indicative of any framing or foundation failure. There was no racking of doors, windows or any diselevation of floors that would be signs of structural movement.
With respect to the floor in the garage, there has been some obvious movement of the garage floor slab. It appears to be settlement related. This damage however is in a non-living area of the home. There is no damage that the engineers believed made the home unsafe or unsanitary. With damage to the slab in the garage, the home is not unlivable. The perimeter foundation walls are supporting the loads they were designed to. There is no failure of any of the framing or lintels supporting the brick. None of the damages viewed were of a catastrophic nature.
As the damages that we viewed did not meet the structural defect definition, the homeowner was informed of such and the claim was declined. If the homeowner is not in agreement with this determination, the warranty provides the dispute resolution forum of arbitration.
I am sorry that we were not able to help with these defects but the structural warranty is limited in what it is designed to cover and none of the defects reported or investigated met the structural defect definition. If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/08/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
In response to your suggestion that there is "a crack in the garage floor which was 1/4" to 3/8" wide and diselvated up to 1/4". It IS NOT "a crack", but two 21' cracks with gaps up to 2"-3" wide running along two sides of my garage. The cracks were due to the entire slab falling 2"-3"!! Not only do the photos prove this, but I welcome anyone to come see the cracks for themselves. Also, the front exterior wall has sunk to the same degree. I had AFS come out and perform an entire structural/foundation analysis. They need $7,450 to install (2) 3" Helical Piers up to 14' deep at the front wall, install 400 sf of PolyLevel over the garage slab. This quote only repairs the foundation/structural problems and DOES NOT even include any cosmetic repairs (bricks, mortar, paint drywall, etc.).
So, when you tell me that my damages do not constitute structural damages, I (and AFS, the authority on damages such as these) wholeheartedly disagree.
Your suggestion for me to pay another $1,000+ for arbitration ON TOP of the $250 I already paid you to file this claim is unethical and irresponsible. Please do the right thing and work with me on these damages.
I will review 2-10 to no end. Whether the reviews are good or bad depends on your further handling of this claim.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/09/02) */
NHIC has reviewed the response by the homeowner and has the following comments. The cracking or separation of the brick on the front porch entry way as well as the drywall cracking in the kitchen and southeast bedroom was not caused by the settlement of the garage slab. This has been confirmed by the engineer who inspected the loss. Even with these damages NHIC does not have a bid which would substantiate the claimed cost of $22,500.
Irrespective of this we acknowledge the counter proposal from the homeowner of $3,000.00 plus the return of the investigation fee of $250.00. In order to bring this disputed claim to a conclusion, NHIC is agreeable to pay the homeowner the sum of $3,250.00 in exchange for a release of this claim as well as the foundation at the front of the home. We will require a signed release and will then pay the homeowner directly the agreed upon sum.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 16, 2015/09/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I accept the total payment of $3,250. Please forward the Release and I will execute today.
Thank you,
[redacted]

I have reviewed the complaint that has been filed by these homeowners regarding a claim that they originally filed with National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group) (NHIC) in 2013.  With this response let me add some important details with respect to what is now being claimed. ...

The original claim involved movement of a deck which supported a column that in turn supported a roof structure above.  NHIC originally accepted the claim as being covered under the warranty and asked the homeowners to obtain a bid for the repair.  They were not able to produce a bid and they asked if we knew of a contractor who did this type of work.  We had worked with a contractor named RMC in the past and they had done credible work.RMC agreed to go to the site and provide a bid which they did to repair the deck foundation.  They submitted a bid which totaled $5,870.23.  This was based on a method of repair that they proffered and represented would correct the problem.  NHIC was concerned that the cost was excessive and informed the homeowner however the homeowner opted to use this contractor and the repair that they offered.  The warranty on the home allows NHIC to pay for a repair, hire a contractor to perform the repair or replace the defect.  Since the homeowners insisted on using RMC, NHIC sent a release which released all further responsibility of NHIC for this defect in exchange for the payment of the amount of the bid by RMC.  The homeowners signed the release, accepted the payment and hired RMC to do the work.  NHIC has no further responsibility for this claim as we have paid a reasonable cost to perform a covered repair.  NHIC did not design or approve the repair.  NHIC did not guarantee the outcome of the repair.  When the money was paid for the repair NHIC had no control over the repairs and the homeowner specifically released NHIC from any further responsibility.  RMC is not NHIC's contractor and was not controlled by NHIC.  If there are any problems with this repair the homeowner should take that up with RMC whom they hired to do the fix.  If there is a disagreement with any aspect of any claim by the homeowner with NHIC the warranty calls for binding arbitration.  This is the course the homeowner may take if they disagree with our position.  We are sorry we are not able to help however NHIC has met its contractual obligation with the payment of the claim.  If you have questions regarding this, please let me know.                                     �...⇄ Technical ManagerNational Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group) (NHIC)

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: We, the homeowners, neither received nor gave any of our own money to either party. We were simply the intermediary, relying on the honesty and expertise of two businesses that supposedly specialize in fixing structural problems in houses. NHIC used their money to pay for RMC's repair. Thus, the agreement/business contract failure at issue here is between NHIC and RMC, and they need to resolve it together.We are not, and never were, a party to the contract/agreement between NHIC and RMC.  NHIC recommended RMC, reviewed their plans, and then paid RMC. RMC provided a grossly inadequate solution to the problem--how grossly inadequate we could never have guessed, as we are not experts in the building field. We trusted them.Anyone who pays for a service wants that service to be performed correctly so that it doesn't have to be repeated. We know we aren't experts in home repair and construction, so we would never have willingly signed a document to absolve NHIC of their responsibility to make sure this repair was a wise way to spend THEIR OWN money. If we signed something, then clearly our agreement was coerced and done with the INTENTION to deceive us. Smoke and mirrors must have been involved. We didn't realize we'd need to hire a lawyer and a certified construction engineer to stand beside us every minute during this process to protect us from two companies who were supposed to HELP us.We feel cheated and want to protect future consumers from a similar fate. Only NHIC can make this right.  As a home warranty company, NHIC remains responsible for the structural health of their customer's homes--that is literally their only job. We are their customers, our home remains structurally unsound, and it's their job to make sure it becomes structurally sound ASAP. It's that simple.In summary: we expect NHIC to fulfill their obligation to us by working with RMC (or another contractor of their choice) to repair the column support to our satisfaction, at their own expense, and promptly--before the house suffers further damage.Sincerely,
[redacted]

I received the complaint filed  by [redacted] regarding the warranty claim filed on his home located at [redacted].  This will be the response of the warranty insurer, [redacted], ([redacted]).  It appears that there are two major concerns that [redacted]...

has regarding the claim.  The first is he is requesting that the warranty insurer pay for the upgraded wood floor that apparently is the surface on top of the wood framing structural portion of his home that has sustained damage and qualifies for coverage under the warranty.  The second issue is that he is concerned that if a release is signed and he has the work done and it does not pass the engineer inspection then his rights would not be protected.In order to address these concerns, it is important to understand that the claim that [redacted] has filed is governed by the contract document that the builder placed on his home.  A copy of that document which is the HBW 307 warranty, 2/20/2009 version should have been provided to [redacted] at the time he purchased the home.  If he does not have a copy of the warranty we can send him a copy.  When a claim meets the criteria for coverage, as a portion of the floor framing did in [redacted]'s home, the warranty specifies how the claim is to be resolved.  On page 5 of the warranty under "Repair" is stated that the Builder or Warranty Insurer shall have the option to repair, replace, or pay the reasonable cost of repair of any covered defect or structural defect.  The design, method and manner of the repair is at the discretion of the Builder or the Warranty insurer.  It also states that the homeowner is responsible for any damage to any improvement, fixture or property not constructed by the Builder which is damaged by or during the repair of a covered defect or structural defect.With respect to the wood flooring that is supported by the structural framing that is the covered element in this claim, we understand that this is not part of the original product installed by the builder but is an upgrade that the homeowner installed.  As such it is considered to be a part of the home that is not the builder's work and would not be covered.  [redacted] will pay for the cost of restoring the original flooring, which we understand to be carpet, but not for the upgraded wood floor.  Regarding the other concern or the homeowner receiving a cash amount and signing a release for the claim, if [redacted] dictates the type of repair and has it inspected by an engineer to verify that the repair is done properly, then NHIC will be responsible to make sure the repair was done properly, if the homeowner had a contractor that followed the plan and had the designated engineer perform the inspection.  If the homeowner does not follow the plan, or implements another method of repair or does not have the proper inspections done by the designated engineer then there is no responsibility on the part of [redacted]. I do not believe that a final agreement and release has been entered into on this claim but these principles discussed above would be what the release would  entail.  I am sorry that we are not able to pay for the upgraded floor however the warranty terms do not allow us to do so.  As far as being protected in the claim, [redacted] will have all the protection necessary under the law and the contract.  If there are questions regarding this, he can let me know. [redacted]Claim Technical Manager[redacted]