Pinnacle Restoration

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the complaint that has been filed by [redacted] pertaining to an insurance claim and subsequent repairs that Pinnacle Restoration handled on his property at [redacted] ** [redacted] is asserting that his current issues with the water damage to his home are related to the prior repairs that Pinnacle Restoration performed for him Pinnacle Restoration disagrees with [redacted] ***’ assertions and we feel that we have responded to him clearly in a professional, adequate and timely manner regarding the issue(s) in question We want to provide a timeline of events that have transpired since we closed his initial claim: - March 24, / [redacted] contacted our offices informing Pinnacle Restoration that he had a potential warranty issue with a water leak in his rental property - March 25, / [redacted] , Operations Manager for Pinnacle Restoration contacted [redacted] and got the details on the issue(s) that [redacted] was experiencing Warranty claim was assigned to a Project Manager for evaluation Project Manager contacted [redacted] and left a VM for John to schedule time to access and inspect the property - March 26, / Pinnacle PM inspected the [redacted] property and observed water damage that was spread throughout several areas of the house This damage appeared to be caused from a leak somewhere inside of a wall in the laundry room area The water damage observed was the result of a leak that existed over an extended duration of time and our PM noted that there were obvious signs of negligence in reporting this condition in a timely manner - April 02, / Review of current damage photos and original scope of repairs was undertaken and Pinnacle Restoration evaluated the validity of the warranty status of the claim - April 07, / Final review and determination made that the current leak and the subsequent damage were not related to the work performed by Pinnacle Restoration in Voice mail left for [redacted] informing him of our determination - April 08, / Certified letter (attached) containing our denial of the warranty claim and the reasoning for the denial along with a copy of the scope for the work performed on the original insurance claim in was sent to [redacted] at his residence in [redacted] ** - April 08, / Email sent to [redacted] at [redacted] informing them of the results of our inspection and denial of warranty claim - April 10, / Job Closed - October 08, / [redacted] called Pinnacle Restoration offices threatening to report us to the Revdex.com for failing to accept responsibility and repair the damage to his property - October 09, / [redacted] contacted [redacted] and explained our position [redacted] was upset and reiterated his threat to report us to the Revdex.com [redacted] informed him that he would personally visit the residence to look at the damage to give the matter a further review - October 10, / [redacted] called [redacted] at [redacted] to schedule a time to inspect the [redacted] property Appointment was set for October 14th - October 14, / Four members of the Pinnacle Restoration Team inspected the [redacted] residence(Operations Manager / General Manager / Project Manager and Estimator) The results of the second inspection as well as our subsequent investigation are as follows: [redacted] residence has repairs to the flood damage underway Repairs observed and work being performed include plumbing repairs to the water supply pipes that feed the Hot and Cold water to the laundry room and flood cuts throughout the residence to remove damaged drywall After inspecting the nature of the leak and the repairs that were made, Pinnacle Restoration maintains its positon that although there was a leak in the laundry room that created the water damage to the [redacted] residence, this leak was not caused by nor did it relate to the work that was performed by Pinnacle Restoration during the initial insurance claim It is apparent that the leak came from the failure of a solder joint or joints at the water supply feeding the Hot and Cold water valves and this joint or joints are what was repaired as the cause of the leak The failure of these solder joints were not caused by Pinnacle Restoration during the repairs made to [redacted] property in We are attaching pictures taken during our secondary inspection of the repairs that were made to the solder joints in question - October 22, / Email and Certified letter being sent to [redacted] informing him of the results of our secondary inspection and disposition In [redacted] ***’ complaint he states several things that Pinnacle Restoration disputes as follows: 1) Pinnacle Restoration never removed any drywall “sheetrock” from the [redacted] property during the initial claim or at any time following as [redacted] states The insurance scope clearly shows the work performed 2) Pinnacle Restoration never accessed the interior walls in the laundry room or the plumbing contained in the walls in the laundry room at any time during our repairs 3) Pinnacle Restoration drove a small nail through a water supply line in the bathroom when installing the bathroom cabinets This was reported to [redacted] and it was reported as a single point of damage and this was a minor repair This is the damage that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint There were not several points of damage and this did not significantly delay the completion of the project In addition, the repair of the leak in the bathroom has nothing to do with the current leak and repairs in the laundry room They are two separate and distinctly different issues and events 4) Our denial of responsibility is based on the supporting evidence that we did not cause the failure that resulted in the leak responsible for the water damage Our reference to the time that it took the tenants and / or [redacted] to report the damage to us is not why we are denying this warranty claim Our statement was to assert our position that the extent of the resulting damage is far greater than it would have been had the leak been reported in a timely manner and appropriate action and repairs made as a result In conclusion, we understand [redacted] ***’ frustration with the current situation that exists at his residence However, Pinnacle Restoration feels that it has been responsive, proactive and professional in our handling of this matter Although [redacted] may not agree with our determination, we do feel that we have represented ourselves in a manner that is consistent with the standards that the Revdex.com requires Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly Regards, [redacted] Operations Manager

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the complaint that has been filed by [redacted] pertaining to an insurance claim and subsequent repairs that Pinnacle Restoration handled on his property at [redacted].
 
[redacted] is asserting that his current issues with the...

water damage to his home are related to the prior repairs that Pinnacle Restoration performed for him.   Pinnacle Restoration disagrees with [redacted]’ assertions and we feel that we have responded to him clearly in a professional, adequate and timely manner regarding the issue(s) in question.
 
We want to provide a timeline of events that have transpired since we closed his initial claim:
 
-          March 24, 2014 / [redacted] contacted our offices informing Pinnacle Restoration that he had a potential warranty issue with a water leak in his rental property. 
-          March 25, 2014 / [redacted], Operations Manager for Pinnacle Restoration contacted [redacted] and got the details on the issue(s) that [redacted] was experiencing.   Warranty claim was assigned to a  Project Manager for evaluation.  Project Manager contacted [redacted] and left a VM for John to schedule time to access and inspect the property.
-          March 26, 2014 / Pinnacle PM inspected the [redacted] property and observed water damage that was spread throughout several areas of the house.  This damage appeared to be caused from a leak somewhere inside of a wall in the laundry room area.  The water damage observed was the result of a leak that existed over an extended duration of time and our PM noted that there were obvious signs of negligence in reporting this condition in a timely manner.   
-          April 02, 2014 / Review of current damage photos and original scope of repairs was undertaken and Pinnacle Restoration evaluated the validity of the warranty status of the claim.
-          April 07, 2014 / Final review and determination made that the current leak and the subsequent damage were not related to the work performed by Pinnacle Restoration in 2012.  Voice mail left for [redacted] informing him of our determination.
-          April 08, 2014 / Certified letter (attached) containing our denial of the warranty claim and the reasoning for the denial along with a copy of the scope for the work performed on the original insurance claim in 2012 was sent to [redacted] at his residence in [redacted].
-          April 08, 2014 / Email sent to [redacted] at [redacted] informing them of the results of our inspection and denial of warranty claim.
-          April 10, 2014 / Job Closed
-          October 08, 2014 / [redacted] called Pinnacle Restoration offices threatening to report us to the Revdex.com for failing to accept responsibility and repair the damage to his property.
-          October 09, 2014 / [redacted] contacted [redacted] and explained our position.  [redacted] was upset and reiterated his threat to report us to the Revdex.com.  [redacted] informed him that he would personally visit the residence to look at the damage to give the matter a further review.
-          October 10, 2014 / [redacted] called [redacted] at [redacted] to schedule a time to inspect the [redacted] property.  Appointment was set for October 14th.
-          October 14, 2014 / Four members of the Pinnacle Restoration Team inspected the [redacted] residence. (Operations Manager / General Manager / Project Manager and Estimator).  The results of the second inspection as well as our subsequent investigation are as follows:
 
[redacted] residence has repairs to the flood damage underway.  Repairs observed and work being performed include plumbing repairs to the water supply pipes that feed the Hot and Cold water to the laundry room and flood cuts throughout the residence to remove damaged drywall.  After inspecting the nature of the leak and the repairs that were made, Pinnacle Restoration maintains its positon that although there was a leak in the laundry room that created the water damage to the [redacted] residence, this leak was not caused by nor did it relate to the work that was performed by Pinnacle Restoration during the initial insurance claim.    It is apparent that the leak came from the failure of a solder joint or joints at the water supply feeding the Hot and Cold water valves and this joint or joints are what was repaired as the cause of the leak.  The failure of these solder joints were not caused by Pinnacle Restoration during the repairs made to [redacted] property in 2012.  We are attaching pictures taken during our secondary inspection of the repairs that were made to the solder joints in question.
 
-          October 22, 2014 / Email and Certified letter being sent to [redacted] informing him of the results of our secondary inspection and disposition.
 
In [redacted]’ complaint he states several things that Pinnacle Restoration disputes as follows:
 
1)      Pinnacle Restoration never removed any drywall “sheetrock” from the [redacted] property during the initial claim or at any time following as [redacted] states.   The insurance scope clearly shows the work performed.
2)      Pinnacle Restoration never accessed the interior walls in the laundry room or the plumbing contained in the walls in the laundry room at any time during our repairs.
3)      Pinnacle Restoration drove a small nail through a water supply line in the bathroom when installing the bathroom cabinets.  This was reported to [redacted] and it was reported as a single point of damage and this was a minor repair .  This is the damage that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint.  There were not several points of damage and this did not significantly delay the completion of the project.  In addition, the repair of the leak in the bathroom has nothing to do with the current leak and repairs in the laundry room.  They are two separate and distinctly different issues and events. 
4)      Our denial of responsibility is based on the supporting evidence that we did not cause the failure that resulted in the leak responsible for the water damage.  Our reference to the time that it took the tenants and  / or [redacted] to report the damage to us is not why we are denying this warranty claim.  Our statement was to assert our position that the extent of the resulting damage is far greater than it would have been had the leak been reported in a timely manner and appropriate action and repairs made as a result.
 
In conclusion, we understand [redacted]’ frustration with the current situation that exists at his residence.  However, Pinnacle Restoration feels that it has been responsive, proactive and professional in our handling of this matter.  Although [redacted] may not agree with our determination, we do feel that we have represented ourselves in a manner that is consistent with the standards that the Revdex.com requires.
 
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
 
Regards,
 [redacted]
Operations Manager

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the complaint that has been filed by [redacted] pertaining to an insurance claim and subsequent repairs that Pinnacle Restoration handled on his property at [redacted].

 

[redacted] is asserting that his current issues...

with the water damage to his home are related to the prior repairs that Pinnacle Restoration performed for him.   Pinnacle Restoration disagrees with [redacted]’ assertions and we feel that we have responded to him clearly in a professional, adequate and timely manner regarding the issue(s) in question.

 

We want to provide a timeline of events that have transpired since we closed his initial claim:

 

-          March 24, 2014 / [redacted] contacted our offices informing Pinnacle Restoration that he had a potential warranty issue with a water leak in his rental property. 

-          March 25, 2014 / [redacted], Operations Manager for Pinnacle Restoration contacted [redacted] and got the details on the issue(s) that [redacted] was experiencing.   Warranty claim was assigned to a  Project Manager for evaluation.  Project Manager contacted [redacted] and left a VM for John to schedule time to access and inspect the property.

-          March 26, 2014 / Pinnacle PM inspected the [redacted] property and observed water damage that was spread throughout several areas of the house.  This damage appeared to be caused from a leak somewhere inside of a wall in the laundry room area.  The water damage observed was the result of a leak that existed over an extended duration of time and our PM noted that there were obvious signs of negligence in reporting this condition in a timely manner.   

-          April 02, 2014 / Review of current damage photos and original scope of repairs was undertaken and Pinnacle Restoration evaluated the validity of the warranty status of the claim.

-          April 07, 2014 / Final review and determination made that the current leak and the subsequent damage were not related to the work performed by Pinnacle Restoration in 2012.  Voice mail left for [redacted] informing him of our determination.

-          April 08, 2014 / Certified letter (attached) containing our denial of the warranty claim and the reasoning for the denial along with a copy of the scope for the work performed on the original insurance claim in 2012 was sent to [redacted] at his residence in [redacted].

-          April 08, 2014 / Email sent to [redacted] at [redacted] informing them of the results of our inspection and denial of warranty claim.

-          April 10, 2014 / Job Closed

-          October 08, 2014 / [redacted] called Pinnacle Restoration offices threatening to report us to the Revdex.com for failing to accept responsibility and repair the damage to his property.

-          October 09, 2014 / [redacted] contacted [redacted] and explained our position.  [redacted] was upset and reiterated his threat to report us to the Revdex.com.  [redacted] informed him that he would personally visit the residence to look at the damage to give the matter a further review.

-          October 10, 2014 / [redacted] called [redacted] at [redacted] to schedule a time to inspect the [redacted] property.  Appointment was set for October 14th.

-          October 14, 2014 / Four members of the Pinnacle Restoration Team inspected the [redacted] residence. (Operations Manager / General Manager / Project Manager and Estimator).  The results of the second inspection as well as our subsequent investigation are as follows:

 

[redacted] residence has repairs to the flood damage underway.  Repairs observed and work being performed include plumbing repairs to the water supply pipes that feed the Hot and Cold water to the laundry room and flood cuts throughout the residence to remove damaged drywall.  After inspecting the nature of the leak and the repairs that were made, Pinnacle Restoration maintains its positon that although there was a leak in the laundry room that created the water damage to the [redacted] residence, this leak was not caused by nor did it relate to the work that was performed by Pinnacle Restoration during the initial insurance claim.    It is apparent that the leak came from the failure of a solder joint or joints at the water supply feeding the Hot and Cold water valves and this joint or joints are what was repaired as the cause of the leak.  The failure of these solder joints were not caused by Pinnacle Restoration during the repairs made to [redacted] property in 2012.  We are attaching pictures taken during our secondary inspection of the repairs that were made to the solder joints in question.

 

-          October 22, 2014 / Email and Certified letter being sent to [redacted] informing him of the results of our secondary inspection and disposition.

 

In [redacted]’ complaint he states several things that Pinnacle Restoration disputes as follows:

 

1)      Pinnacle Restoration never removed any drywall “sheetrock” from the [redacted] property during the initial claim or at any time following as [redacted] states.   The insurance scope clearly shows the work performed.

2)      Pinnacle Restoration never accessed the interior walls in the laundry room or the plumbing contained in the walls in the laundry room at any time during our repairs.

3)      Pinnacle Restoration drove a small nail through a water supply line in the bathroom when installing the bathroom cabinets.  This was reported to [redacted] and it was reported as a single point of damage and this was a minor repair .  This is the damage that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint.  There were not several points of damage and this did not significantly delay the completion of the project.  In addition, the repair of the leak in the bathroom has nothing to do with the current leak and repairs in the laundry room.  They are two separate and distinctly different issues and events. 

4)      Our denial of responsibility is based on the supporting evidence that we did not cause the failure that resulted in the leak responsible for the water damage.  Our reference to the time that it took the tenants and  / or [redacted] to report the damage to us is not why we are denying this warranty claim.  Our statement was to assert our position that the extent of the resulting damage is far greater than it would have been had the leak been reported in a timely manner and appropriate action and repairs made as a result.

 

In conclusion, we understand [redacted]’ frustration with the current situation that exists at his residence.  However, Pinnacle Restoration feels that it has been responsive, proactive and professional in our handling of this matter.  Although [redacted] may not agree with our determination, we do feel that we have represented ourselves in a manner that is consistent with the standards that the Revdex.com requires.

 

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

 

Regards,

 [redacted]

Operations Manager

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the complaint that has been filed by [redacted] pertaining to an insurance claim and subsequent repairs that Pinnacle Restoration handled on his property at [redacted].

 

[redacted] is asserting that his current issues...

with the water damage to his home are related to the prior repairs that Pinnacle Restoration performed for him.   Pinnacle Restoration disagrees with [redacted]’ assertions and we feel that we have responded to him clearly in a professional, adequate and timely manner regarding the issue(s) in question.

 

We want to provide a timeline of events that have transpired since we closed his initial claim:

 

-          March 24, 2014 / [redacted] contacted our offices informing Pinnacle Restoration that he had a potential warranty issue with a water leak in his rental property. 

-          March 25, 2014 / [redacted], Operations Manager for Pinnacle Restoration contacted [redacted] and got the details on the issue(s) that [redacted] was experiencing.   Warranty claim was assigned to a  Project Manager for evaluation.  Project Manager contacted [redacted] and left a VM for John to schedule time to access and inspect the property.

-          March 26, 2014 / Pinnacle PM inspected the [redacted] property and observed water damage that was spread throughout several areas of the house.  This damage appeared to be caused from a leak somewhere inside of a wall in the laundry room area.  The water damage observed was the result of a leak that existed over an extended duration of time and our PM noted that there were obvious signs of negligence in reporting this condition in a timely manner.   

-          April 02, 2014 / Review of current damage photos and original scope of repairs was undertaken and Pinnacle Restoration evaluated the validity of the warranty status of the claim.

-          April 07, 2014 / Final review and determination made that the current leak and the subsequent damage were not related to the work performed by Pinnacle Restoration in 2012.  Voice mail left for [redacted] informing him of our determination.

-          April 08, 2014 / Certified letter (attached) containing our denial of the warranty claim and the reasoning for the denial along with a copy of the scope for the work performed on the original insurance claim in 2012 was sent to [redacted] at his residence in [redacted].

-          April 08, 2014 / Email sent to [redacted] at [redacted] informing them of the results of our inspection and denial of warranty claim.

-          April 10, 2014 / Job Closed

-          October 08, 2014 / [redacted] called Pinnacle Restoration offices threatening to report us to the Revdex.com for failing to accept responsibility and repair the damage to his property.

-          October 09, 2014 / [redacted] contacted [redacted] and explained our position.  [redacted] was upset and reiterated his threat to report us to the Revdex.com.  [redacted] informed him that he would personally visit the residence to look at the damage to give the matter a further review.

-          October 10, 2014 / [redacted] called [redacted] at [redacted] to schedule a time to inspect the [redacted] property.  Appointment was set for October 14th.

-          October 14, 2014 / Four members of the Pinnacle Restoration Team inspected the [redacted] residence. (Operations Manager / General Manager / Project Manager and Estimator).  The results of the second inspection as well as our subsequent investigation are as follows:

 

[redacted] residence has repairs to the flood damage underway.  Repairs observed and work being performed include plumbing repairs to the water supply pipes that feed the Hot and Cold water to the laundry room and flood cuts throughout the residence to remove damaged drywall.  After inspecting the nature of the leak and the repairs that were made, Pinnacle Restoration maintains its positon that although there was a leak in the laundry room that created the water damage to the [redacted] residence, this leak was not caused by nor did it relate to the work that was performed by Pinnacle Restoration during the initial insurance claim.    It is apparent that the leak came from the failure of a solder joint or joints at the water supply feeding the Hot and Cold water valves and this joint or joints are what was repaired as the cause of the leak.  The failure of these solder joints were not caused by Pinnacle Restoration during the repairs made to [redacted] property in 2012.  We are attaching pictures taken during our secondary inspection of the repairs that were made to the solder joints in question.

 

-          October 22, 2014 / Email and Certified letter being sent to [redacted] informing him of the results of our secondary inspection and disposition.

 

In [redacted]’ complaint he states several things that Pinnacle Restoration disputes as follows:

 

1)      Pinnacle Restoration never removed any drywall “sheetrock” from the [redacted] property during the initial claim or at any time following as [redacted] states.   The insurance scope clearly shows the work performed.

2)      Pinnacle Restoration never accessed the interior walls in the laundry room or the plumbing contained in the walls in the laundry room at any time during our repairs.

3)      Pinnacle Restoration drove a small nail through a water supply line in the bathroom when installing the bathroom cabinets.  This was reported to [redacted] and it was reported as a single point of damage and this was a minor repair .  This is the damage that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint.  There were not several points of damage and this did not significantly delay the completion of the project.  In addition, the repair of the leak in the bathroom has nothing to do with the current leak and repairs in the laundry room.  They are two separate and distinctly different issues and events. 

4)      Our denial of responsibility is based on the supporting evidence that we did not cause the failure that resulted in the leak responsible for the water damage.  Our reference to the time that it took the tenants and  / or [redacted] to report the damage to us is not why we are denying this warranty claim.  Our statement was to assert our position that the extent of the resulting damage is far greater than it would have been had the leak been reported in a timely manner and appropriate action and repairs made as a result.

 

In conclusion, we understand [redacted]’ frustration with the current situation that exists at his residence.  However, Pinnacle Restoration feels that it has been responsive, proactive and professional in our handling of this matter.  Although [redacted] may not agree with our determination, we do feel that we have represented ourselves in a manner that is consistent with the standards that the Revdex.com requires.

 

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

 

Regards,

 [redacted]

Operations Manager

Review: Contractor damaged water lines during their repair in 2102 and refuses to repair damage caused by their negligent repairs.

In late 2012 Pinnacle restoration was hired to do repairs to my rental property in [redacted]. The repairs were due to water damage. The repairs were due to water damage when water was left on by a tenant. The repairs consisted of among other things removal of a portion of sheetrock throughout the house. During this process an employee of Pinnacle Restoration damaged pipes in several locations. This was verified to me by the job foreman [redacted]. I was told by [redacted] that the job took longer due to the fact that they had damaged water lines however they were all repaired.

Approximately 18 months later I was notified by my tenant that the walls in the laundry room were wet. Appliances were moved and some mold was found on the bottom of the sheetrock by the baseboard.

I contacted my property management company and asked them to contact Pinnacle Restoration being they were responsible for the leak inside the wall, and they should take care of the problem.

[redacted] of Pinnacle went to the house and stated " After reviewing all of the factors and circumstances associated with the original claim and the subsequent water damage that has occurred, we can find no connection between the work that we performed in 2012 and the current situation that exists. Although the leak appears to be coming from somewhere inside the wall in the laundry room area, the work that we originally performed would not have caused damage to anything inside the wall."

This is untrue being their foreman specifically stated they damaged the water pipes.

They have further stated that they would not take any responsibility for the damages because it took time to be reported.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of current out of pocket expenses and restore the damaged areas to pre-damaged condition.

Business

Response:

Thank you for allowing us to respond to the complaint that has been filed by [redacted] pertaining to an insurance claim and subsequent repairs that Pinnacle Restoration handled on his property at [redacted].

[redacted] is asserting that his current issues with the water damage to his home are related to the prior repairs that Pinnacle Restoration performed for him. Pinnacle Restoration disagrees with [redacted]’ assertions and we feel that we have responded to him clearly in a professional, adequate and timely manner regarding the issue(s) in question.

We want to provide a timeline of events that have transpired since we closed his initial claim:

- March 24, 2014 / [redacted] contacted our offices informing Pinnacle Restoration that he had a potential warranty issue with a water leak in his rental property.

- March 25, 2014 / [redacted], Operations Manager for Pinnacle Restoration contacted [redacted] and got the details on the issue(s) that [redacted] was experiencing. Warranty claim was assigned to a Project Manager for evaluation. Project Manager contacted [redacted] and left a VM for John to schedule time to access and inspect the property.

- March 26, 2014 / Pinnacle PM inspected the [redacted] property and observed water damage that was spread throughout several areas of the house. This damage appeared to be caused from a leak somewhere inside of a wall in the laundry room area. The water damage observed was the result of a leak that existed over an extended duration of time and our PM noted that there were obvious signs of negligence in reporting this condition in a timely manner.

- April 02, 2014 / Review of current damage photos and original scope of repairs was undertaken and Pinnacle Restoration evaluated the validity of the warranty status of the claim.

- April 07, 2014 / Final review and determination made that the current leak and the subsequent damage were not related to the work performed by Pinnacle Restoration in 2012. Voice mail left for [redacted] informing him of our determination.

- April 08, 2014 / Certified letter (attached) containing our denial of the warranty claim and the reasoning for the denial along with a copy of the scope for the work performed on the original insurance claim in 2012 was sent to [redacted] at his residence in [redacted].

- April 08, 2014 / Email sent to [redacted] at [redacted] informing them of the results of our inspection and denial of warranty claim.

- April 10, 2014 / Job Closed

- October 08, 2014 / [redacted] called Pinnacle Restoration offices threatening to report us to the Revdex.com for failing to accept responsibility and repair the damage to his property.

- October 09, 2014 / [redacted] contacted [redacted] and explained our position. [redacted] was upset and reiterated his threat to report us to the Revdex.com. [redacted] informed him that he would personally visit the residence to look at the damage to give the matter a further review.

- October 10, 2014 / [redacted] called [redacted] at [redacted] to schedule a time to inspect the [redacted] property. Appointment was set for October 14th.

- October 14, 2014 / Four members of the Pinnacle Restoration Team inspected the [redacted] residence. (Operations Manager / General Manager / Project Manager and Estimator). The results of the second inspection as well as our subsequent investigation are as follows:

[redacted] residence has repairs to the flood damage underway. Repairs observed and work being performed include plumbing repairs to the water supply pipes that feed the Hot and Cold water to the laundry room and flood cuts throughout the residence to remove damaged drywall. After inspecting the nature of the leak and the repairs that were made, Pinnacle Restoration maintains its positon that although there was a leak in the laundry room that created the water damage to the [redacted] residence, this leak was not caused by nor did it relate to the work that was performed by Pinnacle Restoration during the initial insurance claim. It is apparent that the leak came from the failure of a solder joint or joints at the water supply feeding the Hot and Cold water valves and this joint or joints are what was repaired as the cause of the leak. The failure of these solder joints were not caused by Pinnacle Restoration during the repairs made to [redacted] property in 2012. We are attaching pictures taken during our secondary inspection of the repairs that were made to the solder joints in question.

- October 22, 2014 / Email and Certified letter being sent to [redacted] informing him of the results of our secondary inspection and disposition.

In [redacted]’ complaint he states several things that Pinnacle Restoration disputes as follows:

1) Pinnacle Restoration never removed any drywall “sheetrock” from the [redacted] property during the initial claim or at any time following as [redacted] states. The insurance scope clearly shows the work performed.

2) Pinnacle Restoration never accessed the interior walls in the laundry room or the plumbing contained in the walls in the laundry room at any time during our repairs.

3) Pinnacle Restoration drove a small nail through a water supply line in the bathroom when installing the bathroom cabinets. This was reported to [redacted] and it was reported as a single point of damage and this was a minor repair . This is the damage that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint. There were not several points of damage and this did not significantly delay the completion of the project. In addition, the repair of the leak in the bathroom has nothing to do with the current leak and repairs in the laundry room. They are two separate and distinctly different issues and events.

4) Our denial of responsibility is based on the supporting evidence that we did not cause the failure that resulted in the leak responsible for the water damage. Our reference to the time that it took the tenants and / or [redacted] to report the damage to us is not why we are denying this warranty claim. Our statement was to assert our position that the extent of the resulting damage is far greater than it would have been had the leak been reported in a timely manner and appropriate action and repairs made as a result.

In conclusion, we understand [redacted]’ frustration with the current situation that exists at his residence. However, Pinnacle Restoration feels that it has been responsive, proactive and professional in our handling of this matter. Although [redacted] may not agree with our determination, we do feel that we have represented ourselves in a manner that is consistent with the standards that the Revdex.com requires.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Regards,

[redacted]

Operations Manager

I had a tenant cause an explosion on the patio of my condo resulting in damaged drywall and a destroyed sliding glass door. Pinnacle Restoration was called by the HOA's insurance and my insurance decided to let them complete the job. They started 2 weeks later and got everything done very neatly and like it had never happened. I am very pleased with the work performed. My only gripe with them is that they could not start the job for 2 weeks after the quote which was not an issue, but they should have ordered the new slider at the point of me signing papers instead of waiting until starting the job. It delayed completion by 2 weeks. Nonetheless I am satisfied.

If you are looking for CUSTOMER SERVICE, I would suggest you GO ELSEWHERE! [redacted] came out on a Friday. Told him I had a 2 week deadline. Said he would call on Monday:

>No call Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday

>I sent email on Wednesday

>I called Thursday "morning", spoke to [redacted] and she said [redacted] would call. He called at 6:46pm, left message and made no other efforts to contact me despite having 3 phone numbers.

>I called them again on Friday at which time [redacted] said they were not going to do the job (about $3,000)

>Asked him why he didn't call me on Monday knowing I was on a deadline and his response, "It was a busy week."

Thanks Pinnacle Restoration for leaving me in a bind.