This is the worst home warranty company there is Let me tell you our storyWe had a one year warranty with RWS We filed a claim with RWS for our stove We called and called and spoke to a Ms*** many times and she kept saying that we would receive $toward the purchase of a new stove and that the check was coming and tit was weeks and the check never did After we kept calling Ms***, we came to fund out that she had been fired for giving information, so, of course, no check ever came So, we talked to a couple of other supervisors, one named Joshua and he was no help and just pushed the information to the side and did not do much other than check on the claimI kept calling and calling, and then I finally reached someone in management, named Mr*** and he kept giving us the run around and stated that $toward the purchase of a new stove was all that he could provideWe asked him if this is the maximum amount and he stated yes It took weeks to get all of the $as I had to keep calling week after week for about weeks to get all of the money If we did not keep calling, we would have never got all of the $ Please note: I had to call Mr*** on the phone because he was very rude with my wife once trying to get this claim payment resolved I told him we would not apologize for any information that was said because this is not the way a warranty company should be runI would never recommend this company and our experience was horrible
The homeowner submitted this claim on April but did not follow the claims procedures, clearly outlined in the policy itself, regarding the submission of necessary documents, even though she did request a buyout, which was
approved dependent upon the documents validating the claim.However, until the proper information is submitted (including an itemized estimate/invoice showing the damage), this claim cannot be fully processed and so the buyout cannot be issuedThe homeowner was notified of this on April 2016, and May and, while it appears the contractor has told the homeowner he has sent the invoice repeatedly, nothing has been received by RWS
So as to move this claim forward, please have your contractor provide us confirmation of his sending (and RWS's receiving) the document so that there are no further miscommunicationsOtherwise, your contractor will need to send the information and confirm that it has been received by RWS before this claim is able to move forwardPlease be aware that, after the proper documentation is received, RWS will have up to business days to issue and mail payment
Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis IN 46204Re: Complaint ID ***To Whom It May Concern:We are in receipt of the complaint filed by *** *** regarding her HVAC unit located at *** * *** Avenue Indianapolis IN
46240. The homeowner filed a claim on her HVAC unit stating that the thermostat for the unit was not working Our contractor was dispatched to the above property location and determined that the fan limit and ignition module on their year old Lennox unit had failed Due to the age of the unit Lennox no longer manufactures parts.The terms of the warranty that the homeowner references are unambiguous and listed below:Per the terms of our warranty the limits of liability #& #state:# “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s) The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail.”# RWS shall be responsible only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part.”A copy of the warranty has been attached for your reference.The warranty clearly states we are only responsible for the defective part(s) (which is stated in #9) When parts are not available we will take the average cost of a similar part (which is stated in #10) for pricing of the cash payment.We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Ms. *** experienced; however, Residential Warranty Services followed the terms of our warranty. Sincerely,*** ***Director of OperationsResidential Warranty Services
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I am not disputing that I signed and agreed to the warrantyI am simply saying that I interpret the agreement to mean one thing, while RWS interprets it another wayin other words I am claiming that it is ambiguous, or that it is read to include replacements when there is an unavailable repair. I do not feel that this response was in any way different from the first responseI would like the business to actually respond to my concerns (not just continue to attach a signed warranty agreement) before I can decide where to go from here.As I stated before, the warranty language is peppered with "repair/replacement" in several placesAgain, if a year old furnace with an unavailable part does not warrant a replacement, in what instance would you offer a replacement? And if you do not offer replacements ever, why are you holding yourself out as offering this service? This would be very misleadingIf RWS can actually find me a "substitute" part to fix my furnace, I will be satisfied with the $offerBut if the only "substitute" is a new furnace for $2800, then that is what RWS needs to pay. I also want to reiterate that just because RWS believes the language to be "unambiguous" or that it "clearly" states something, does not make it trueIn fact, courts generally construe ambiguous contract language against the drafter (RWS in this instance) because they have the advantage of controlling what the language says. I feel that RWS has shown complete indifference to my situationIt is degrees outside today, and my furnace only works about 50% of the timeRWS knows this, and continues to simply attach the warranty agreement in response, even though I have made it clear that I have read and understand the provisions in question. Regards,*** ***
The homeowner, in their answer, appears to be insinuating that RWS independently chose a buyout number that coincidentally happened to match up, over a week later, with the exact pricing the homeowner’s own contractor would charge to remediate the problem areasWhile RWS is flattered by the compliment, we do not have such capabilitiesInstead, as stated in our last response, we reached out to the contractor over a week ago, was told the actual cost of remediation, which was approved and conveyed to the homeownerThe call to the contractor a few days ago was simply to confirm and verify no changes had been made, in order to ensure the homeowner was taken care ofFurthermore, the homeowner’s termite protection plan clearly covers “chemical treatment, as deemed necessary by RWS to properly control the applicable termites and carpenter ants.” As a result, the $1,bid to treat the homeowner’s entire house is not the “necessary amount” as the homeowner alleges in their previous responseInstead, the contractor has stated, and verified, that remediation of the affected areas would cost $RWS approved that amount immediately and expedited the homeowner’s buyout check, which was mailed earlier this week
The homeowner should bear in mind that all of this transpired due to RWS’s want to ensure they were taken care of and due to their own home inspector looking after themThe estimate submitted, as stated previously, was incomplete and precluded coverage of this claimThe home inspector, and then RWS, independently took it upon themselves to reach out to the necessary parties, with no obligation to do so, to ensure the homeowners were taken care ofBeyond that, due to the time that had lapsed due to the incomplete estimate, RWS, despite having no fault for the delay, then expedited the homeowner’s buyout check instead of following standard company procedures which allow up to days for final processing and issuance and was able to process and mail a check within a weekAll of this was done with NO obligation to do so, but out of a want to garner complete customer satisfaction and ensure the homeowner was taken care ofAs stated earlier, if the homeowner wants their claim re-opened, with no guarantee an audit will result in a higher buyout amount, they can void and return the buyout check, submit an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, and RWS would be happy to review
The homeowner filed a claim that was initially approved for $1700, subject to final processingDuring the final processing, it was made apparent that there were issues with the sewer noted in the homeowner’s
inspection report and, as a result, the homeowner’s claim was ultimately deniedThere was no denial because of exclusion (m) though the homeowner should be aware that the SewerGard policies were updated in June of and it appears his home inspector provided him with an outdated version - while that doesn’t matter for the situation at hand as his denial had nothing to do with the almost year old update, it appears there was some confusion which we wanted to clarifyHowever, because we here at RWS want to ensure complete customer satisfaction and ensure that we are following the terms of our warranty tenfold, if the homeowner would call the Director of Operations, with whom he has already spoken, his claim has been re-opened and the Director has some follquestions to see if we can’t still get this issue covered under the warranty
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.First, while I appreciate the attachment of the RWS warranty contract, I have my own copy and am fully capable of reading it and interpreting it on my own.
Second, although it is RWS' opinion that the language is unambiguous, I completely disagreeI think the language is ambiguous at best, and even if unambiguous, reads in my favorSimply stating that your contract language is unambiguous does not magically render it unambiguousIf only that were the case, right?
Third, I am not satisfied with the $offerI agree that the language gives RWS the ability to give a cash payment "in lieu of" repair/replacement under provision #However, I interpret this to mean "in the place of." $does not come close to a substitution of any repair or replacement, because a repair is impossible, and a replacement is much more expensiveFurther, provision #obligates RWS to be responsible "for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part." I have an unavailable part, but I have not been furnished with a similar part at allIn fact, I have been informed that such a part is not in existence, so the only similar part is one contained within a brand new furnace.
Imagine if you took your car to the dealer (under your warranty), and the dealer told you that a switch was brokenUnfortunately, that switch is no longer available, so you have to purchase a brand new carBut the dealer is willing to offer you the amount of that switch to help fund your new car purchase! This does not seem to make a lot of sense, but the principles are identical.
I am also unsure how a company can actually compute a market value for something that has no marketAn average cost of a switch on another unit is completely irrelevant because no other switch can come close to fixing my unit.
I purchased this warranty under the impression that it would be useful when something in my breaks downIt would help me ensure that it could get fixedThat has happened here, and RWS has not offered a viable amount in achieving that end.
I also do not appreciate them pointing out that my unit is years old, as if this should be expectedThe age of the unit should be irrelevant, or RWS should refuse to cover older units.
Lastly, I am curious as to when RWS would ever offer a replacementThe multiple mentions of "repair/replacement" heavily implies (actually, it expressly indicates) that a replacement is availableBut if an obsolete part in a "year old" furnace does not warrant a replacement, what does? This company purports to offer services that it has not in fact offered.
Regards,*** ***
While we do sympathize with this homeowner’s experience, we would like to refer them to their Day policy, which states “this service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others”As
the homeowner indicated (as did the contractor) that a faulty spring caused the damage, the issue is mechanical and, unfortunately, garage doors are not covered under this policy’s mechanical coverageWhile attached garage doors are covered under structural coverage, the homeowner indicated that the spring snapped, causing the issue and, despite her assertion that her garage doors were replaced per her Revdex.com complaint, the invoice she submitted to us, from her contractor, mentions nothing as to the garage doors and only mentions the failure of the spring and associated partsFinally, the policy clearly states that “the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place”As the homeowner informed us that she has a current, multi-year home warranty in place with another company, she will need to file a claim under her multi-year warranty before filing it through usAs a result of all of the above issues, this claim was and remains denied
When I went to buy my first home I did some research on mortgages, interest, payments, and anything else I could think ofI should've also researched home warranty companies more than I did even with the low price and decent deductibles that RWS hadI might've found one that actually follows through with claims but I guess I got what I paid for with this one
I filed a claim near the end of my warranty term and was assured the check would be sent within the specified time limit (I believe up to days)I followed up with Josh who kept magically "losing" the email with the photo of the invoice I'd sent.This went on a couple of times before I called and asked to speak to a supervisor regarding my claim
I'm not sure if this person was a supervisor or not but I sent him my information and correct mailing address and the same photo of the invoice for my repairHe assured me a check for the claim amount minus the deductible would be mailed to me that FridayIt's now been over two weeks since I've heard from this person and still nothing in the mailI've sent a follow up email and nothingNo reply
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
N Delaware Street #
Indianapolis
IN 46204-
RE: Complaint #***
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the complaint filed by *** ** in regards to her
day warranty claim on the foundation of her home.
On 7/7/we received a claim via email for an issue with the
foundation of her home. The homeowner
provided us with the information requested.
While processing her claim we found that there were structural issues
noted in her inspection report (attachment 1).
The day warranty states “All structural coverage is limited to an
aggregate maximum of $2000.00”. I have attached a copy of the day warranty
terms (attachment 2) showing that we cover items that were confirmed to be in
good working order at time of inspection.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Ms. ** may have experienced
with his claim; however, Residential Warranty Services made an exception to
typical procedures by covering items that would not normally be covered. We are issuing the homeowner a check in the
amount of $even though we are not contractually obligated to cover any issues that
were noted in the home inspection
Sincerely,
*** ***
Director of Warranty Operations
Residential Warranty Services, INC
www.rwswarranty.com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Their response does not at all respond to my complaint; I am not arguing whether or not my claim should have been approved and I am not disputing their policyI am complaining because two (2) different employees told me that my claim had been approvedAs a result of my follquestions, they both instructed me to have the work done, which I did; I spent $dollars based on the word of these employees, only to be told later that my claim was not approvedSo, I am complaining because this company has no integrity, and does not stand by their wordFrom my perspective, it seems that this company lied to me - a lie that resulted in $This is an unacceptable way to treat a client; it is an unacceptable way to treat any personAll the information I provided them was true; on that morning, my hot water was not working - the reason is still unknownWhen the plumber came, it was workingThe plumber's note had all the facts, and they had all of this information when they told me that my claim had been approvedThey had the exact same information when they approved my claim as they did when they rejected it.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI couldn't respond to their email So I was given your email to send to you I have complied with what they have requestedI have given them estimates and when I called the contractors after the last emailThey said that their estimates are broke down and if RWS has any questions in regards to what they are charging for that they need to contact them directlyRWS is just giving me the run around and not wanting to payRWS has more excuses,so this issue will never be resolved to satisfactionTell them to send me the original $that they approved me for. ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
The phone message with your director/manager is recordedI suggest you play back that tape and see why I filled a complaint with the Revdex.com immediately following that callYou are being dishonest in your reply as wellYou offered me $and told me I owe you 2 separate $150 deductiblesI told you I was open to having the machine repaired or replacedI don't careI just want it to workI suggested that having the dishwasher replaced probably makes the most sense for several reasons: One, it will save your company money as a new dishwasher is significantly cheaper than repairsthe state of the dishwasher doesn't really warrant fixing it as it will likely fail again in the near futureI don't expect you to buy me a brand spanking new Bosch dishwasher, but I do expect a fair payout$on top of the deductible is completely ridiculousI told your director I would settle for $I got a quote on a comparable dishwasher from 2 sources (sears and recker and boerger)The price of a new comparable machine is $and $(installed) respectively.
The fact that you also are trying to make me pay two separate $deductibles for ONE broken dishwasher is laughableThere was only one service call madePer the contract, RWS is welcome to have a second opinions from one of their own trusted professionalsI am happy to accommodate that
Based on their response, it is clear they would rather demagogue me than try to work out a resolutionTo me this reflects their character.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Please find second estimate attached.
Again, I am willing to settle for $buy out or having the dishwasher repaired at the cost of one deductible (Thus far I have paid $of my $deductibleSee attached)While you may have ambiguously stated in the contract that you are able to charge multiple deductibles, I find this unreasonable for one broken dishwasher (and at the time only one service call).
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Claim was filed strictly according to RWS's requirement and they acknowledged it (July 7th, 2014)Claim is egitimatePlease find in the attachment the photos of the distorted door/frame, fracture/cracks in the wall and estimate for repair($2,for the door, and $23,for the foundation)Also please see the inspection report (which was also forwarded by RWS) , Page Item I: it was marked "There are no significant cracks or movement noted at this time"The last page of the report is the contract regarding RWS coverageNeither the deformed door nor the foundation was brought up in the reportAs matter of fact, both the window company and foundation company were very surprised the inspector did not disclose these very obvious items (Broad day light, no obstruction at all)
Instead of honoring what has been put down on paper "All structural coverage is limited to issues within the home’s foundations and is limited to an aggregate maximum of $2000.00." RWS did not repsond till AUG 18th, with a fraction of the $according to the contract-- $500, of which till this day we have seen noneThey vaguely states "item not covered for the $2000", but failed to specifically say which one is not coveredBoth of these items are strictly structural and nothing else"Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall FoundationsFloor joists, bottom & top plates, and wall members."
After I sent out my rebuttal letter on Aug 25th, 2014, RWS has shut its reponse channels downI sent out multiple inquires/phone messages, but was not successful in getting a responsePlease see attached email messages
In all, RWS has not been responding my legitimate claim in a professional mannerThe $2,due according to the contract is only a fraction of the cost needed for the inspection-missed item repairWe are awaiting the payment to start the repair
Regards,
*** **
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowThere were no work done except to the service guys determined the AC need replacementNo freon was added except a very little to charge the system (per service guy)RWS is totally making up that or some ridiculous amount of freon was addedRWS can not even produce the invoice with cost of freon added, because they did notLet RWS produce what the exact amount in invoice that reflects freon costOnly thing in the invoice is the deductible amount of $
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I did not call in the claim March11th, I faxed it to Travis a claims person at 10:am with pages of what they wanted! And they lost it and I sent it again a month later by US mail! The Termite inspector only gave my the Cover page that only has their name and phone number on it! Even talking with two or three other claims people over the weeks of calling, the $never came up until they called two months later that the $would be deducted from the $Plus I paid $for a total home inspectionYes I did tell them if I had to go to court I would ask for all my money back from this house transaction! I feel I was ripped off again! The termites is just one problems that has come up with this house! Electrical, Plumbing, Refrigeratorfloors and sprinklers Regards,
*** ***
This homeowner filed this claim on June 2016, and provided us with an invoice on the 17th - we are not even a week past the date we received the estimate and the
homeowner is filing a Revdex.com complaint.The homeowner needs to be aware of the terms of her warranty, which states “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor ... without prior authorization”Your contractor will need to get approval from RWS before any repairs are made or costs are incurred, as you were told previously and as you are aware of, per your initial Revdex.com submissionIf you move forward with this repair without authorization, RWS will not be liable for any costs associated theretoHowever, based on the circumstances, and our desire to garner complete customer satisfaction from this homeowner, this claim is now being personally handled by the Warranty Director, and she will be receiving a call today to get her claim moved forward
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear
RWS claims I put a claim in for a clogged drain and that is falseWhen it was determined that the they needed further information for the claim they did contact the plumber and asked and explained the information they needed to proceed with the claim the plumber then sent the information needed to RWS in full detail and the issues that were going onI had two separate issues going on with a hole in the kitchen drain and roots going through a sewage line, both causing clogged linesIn reference to the phone calls there was no abuse on the line and if recorded maybe someone should listen to the phone calls to verify the callsIt was not until I posted my experience on Facebook and had many repaonses from people, that the owner of the inspection company called me back after two months and the new director of RWS decided to call me backI tried to contact the two people handling my claim for a month and a half and was given an excuse for a month and a half prior to thatTerrible customer service and now they try to put it on the customer.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis IN 46204Re: Complaint ID ***To Whom It May Concern:I apologize that Ms*** is not happy with the $that we have offered for the portion of the warranty that Residential Warranty Services, Incis responsible for As previously stated we are following the terms of warranty The homeowner signed and returned a form to us acknowledging that she has read and understood the warranty.For reference I have attached a copy of the warranty and the policy notice with the homeowner’s signature.Per the terms of our warranty the limits of liability #& #state:# “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s) The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail.”# RWS shall be responsible only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part.”The warranty clearly states we are only responsible for the defective part(s) When parts are not available we will take the average cost of a similar part (which is stated in #10) for pricing of the cash payment It does not say that we will provide a similar part just that we are responsible for the cost of a similar part.Sincerely,*** ***Director of OperationsResidential Warranty Services
This is the worst home warranty company there is Let me tell you our storyWe had a one year warranty with RWS We filed a claim with RWS for our stove We called and called and spoke to a Ms*** many times and she kept saying that we would receive $toward the purchase of a new stove and that the check was coming and tit was weeks and the check never did After we kept calling Ms***, we came to fund out that she had been fired for giving information, so, of course, no check ever came So, we talked to a couple of other supervisors, one named Joshua and he was no help and just pushed the information to the side and did not do much other than check on the claimI kept calling and calling, and then I finally reached someone in management, named Mr*** and he kept giving us the run around and stated that $toward the purchase of a new stove was all that he could provideWe asked him if this is the maximum amount and he stated yes It took weeks to get all of the $as I had to keep calling week after week for about weeks to get all of the money If we did not keep calling, we would have never got all of the $ Please note: I had to call Mr*** on the phone because he was very rude with my wife once trying to get this claim payment resolved I told him we would not apologize for any information that was said because this is not the way a warranty company should be runI would never recommend this company and our experience was horrible
The homeowner submitted this claim on April but did not follow the claims procedures, clearly outlined in the policy itself, regarding the submission of necessary documents, even though she did request a buyout, which was
approved dependent upon the documents validating the claim.However, until the proper information is submitted (including an itemized estimate/invoice showing the damage), this claim cannot be fully processed and so the buyout cannot be issuedThe homeowner was notified of this on April 2016, and May and, while it appears the contractor has told the homeowner he has sent the invoice repeatedly, nothing has been received by RWS
So as to move this claim forward, please have your contractor provide us confirmation of his sending (and RWS's receiving) the document so that there are no further miscommunicationsOtherwise, your contractor will need to send the information and confirm that it has been received by RWS before this claim is able to move forwardPlease be aware that, after the proper documentation is received, RWS will have up to business days to issue and mail payment
Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis IN 46204Re: Complaint ID ***To Whom It May Concern:We are in receipt of the complaint filed by *** *** regarding her HVAC unit located at *** * *** Avenue Indianapolis IN
46240. The homeowner filed a claim on her HVAC unit stating that the thermostat for the unit was not working Our contractor was dispatched to the above property location and determined that the fan limit and ignition module on their year old Lennox unit had failed Due to the age of the unit Lennox no longer manufactures parts.The terms of the warranty that the homeowner references are unambiguous and listed below:Per the terms of our warranty the limits of liability #& #state:# “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s) The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail.”# RWS shall be responsible only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part.”A copy of the warranty has been attached for your reference.The warranty clearly states we are only responsible for the defective part(s) (which is stated in #9) When parts are not available we will take the average cost of a similar part (which is stated in #10) for pricing of the cash payment.We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Ms. *** experienced; however, Residential Warranty Services followed the terms of our warranty. Sincerely,*** ***Director of OperationsResidential Warranty Services
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I am not disputing that I signed and agreed to the warrantyI am simply saying that I interpret the agreement to mean one thing, while RWS interprets it another wayin other words I am claiming that it is ambiguous, or that it is read to include replacements when there is an unavailable repair. I do not feel that this response was in any way different from the first responseI would like the business to actually respond to my concerns (not just continue to attach a signed warranty agreement) before I can decide where to go from here.As I stated before, the warranty language is peppered with "repair/replacement" in several placesAgain, if a year old furnace with an unavailable part does not warrant a replacement, in what instance would you offer a replacement? And if you do not offer replacements ever, why are you holding yourself out as offering this service? This would be very misleadingIf RWS can actually find me a "substitute" part to fix my furnace, I will be satisfied with the $offerBut if the only "substitute" is a new furnace for $2800, then that is what RWS needs to pay. I also want to reiterate that just because RWS believes the language to be "unambiguous" or that it "clearly" states something, does not make it trueIn fact, courts generally construe ambiguous contract language against the drafter (RWS in this instance) because they have the advantage of controlling what the language says. I feel that RWS has shown complete indifference to my situationIt is degrees outside today, and my furnace only works about 50% of the timeRWS knows this, and continues to simply attach the warranty agreement in response, even though I have made it clear that I have read and understand the provisions in question. Regards,*** ***
The homeowner, in their answer, appears to be insinuating that RWS independently chose a buyout number that coincidentally happened to match up, over a week later, with the exact pricing the homeowner’s own contractor would charge to remediate the problem areasWhile RWS is flattered by the compliment, we do not have such capabilitiesInstead, as stated in our last response, we reached out to the contractor over a week ago, was told the actual cost of remediation, which was approved and conveyed to the homeownerThe call to the contractor a few days ago was simply to confirm and verify no changes had been made, in order to ensure the homeowner was taken care ofFurthermore, the homeowner’s termite protection plan clearly covers “chemical treatment, as deemed necessary by RWS to properly control the applicable termites and carpenter ants.” As a result, the $1,bid to treat the homeowner’s entire house is not the “necessary amount” as the homeowner alleges in their previous responseInstead, the contractor has stated, and verified, that remediation of the affected areas would cost $RWS approved that amount immediately and expedited the homeowner’s buyout check, which was mailed earlier this week
The homeowner should bear in mind that all of this transpired due to RWS’s want to ensure they were taken care of and due to their own home inspector looking after themThe estimate submitted, as stated previously, was incomplete and precluded coverage of this claimThe home inspector, and then RWS, independently took it upon themselves to reach out to the necessary parties, with no obligation to do so, to ensure the homeowners were taken care ofBeyond that, due to the time that had lapsed due to the incomplete estimate, RWS, despite having no fault for the delay, then expedited the homeowner’s buyout check instead of following standard company procedures which allow up to days for final processing and issuance and was able to process and mail a check within a weekAll of this was done with NO obligation to do so, but out of a want to garner complete customer satisfaction and ensure the homeowner was taken care ofAs stated earlier, if the homeowner wants their claim re-opened, with no guarantee an audit will result in a higher buyout amount, they can void and return the buyout check, submit an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, and RWS would be happy to review
The homeowner filed a claim that was initially approved for $1700, subject to final processingDuring the final processing, it was made apparent that there were issues with the sewer noted in the homeowner’s
inspection report and, as a result, the homeowner’s claim was ultimately deniedThere was no denial because of exclusion (m) though the homeowner should be aware that the SewerGard policies were updated in June of and it appears his home inspector provided him with an outdated version - while that doesn’t matter for the situation at hand as his denial had nothing to do with the almost year old update, it appears there was some confusion which we wanted to clarifyHowever, because we here at RWS want to ensure complete customer satisfaction and ensure that we are following the terms of our warranty tenfold, if the homeowner would call the Director of Operations, with whom he has already spoken, his claim has been re-opened and the Director has some follquestions to see if we can’t still get this issue covered under the warranty
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.First, while I appreciate the attachment of the RWS warranty contract, I have my own copy and am fully capable of reading it and interpreting it on my own.
Second, although it is RWS' opinion that the language is unambiguous, I completely disagreeI think the language is ambiguous at best, and even if unambiguous, reads in my favorSimply stating that your contract language is unambiguous does not magically render it unambiguousIf only that were the case, right?
Third, I am not satisfied with the $offerI agree that the language gives RWS the ability to give a cash payment "in lieu of" repair/replacement under provision #However, I interpret this to mean "in the place of." $does not come close to a substitution of any repair or replacement, because a repair is impossible, and a replacement is much more expensiveFurther, provision #obligates RWS to be responsible "for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part." I have an unavailable part, but I have not been furnished with a similar part at allIn fact, I have been informed that such a part is not in existence, so the only similar part is one contained within a brand new furnace.
Imagine if you took your car to the dealer (under your warranty), and the dealer told you that a switch was brokenUnfortunately, that switch is no longer available, so you have to purchase a brand new carBut the dealer is willing to offer you the amount of that switch to help fund your new car purchase! This does not seem to make a lot of sense, but the principles are identical.
I am also unsure how a company can actually compute a market value for something that has no marketAn average cost of a switch on another unit is completely irrelevant because no other switch can come close to fixing my unit.
I purchased this warranty under the impression that it would be useful when something in my breaks downIt would help me ensure that it could get fixedThat has happened here, and RWS has not offered a viable amount in achieving that end.
I also do not appreciate them pointing out that my unit is years old, as if this should be expectedThe age of the unit should be irrelevant, or RWS should refuse to cover older units.
Lastly, I am curious as to when RWS would ever offer a replacementThe multiple mentions of "repair/replacement" heavily implies (actually, it expressly indicates) that a replacement is availableBut if an obsolete part in a "year old" furnace does not warrant a replacement, what does? This company purports to offer services that it has not in fact offered.
Regards,*** ***
While we do sympathize with this homeowner’s experience, we would like to refer them to their Day policy, which states “this service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others”As
the homeowner indicated (as did the contractor) that a faulty spring caused the damage, the issue is mechanical and, unfortunately, garage doors are not covered under this policy’s mechanical coverageWhile attached garage doors are covered under structural coverage, the homeowner indicated that the spring snapped, causing the issue and, despite her assertion that her garage doors were replaced per her Revdex.com complaint, the invoice she submitted to us, from her contractor, mentions nothing as to the garage doors and only mentions the failure of the spring and associated partsFinally, the policy clearly states that “the coverage under this policy shall come after any and all other warranties in place”As the homeowner informed us that she has a current, multi-year home warranty in place with another company, she will need to file a claim under her multi-year warranty before filing it through usAs a result of all of the above issues, this claim was and remains denied
When I went to buy my first home I did some research on mortgages, interest, payments, and anything else I could think ofI should've also researched home warranty companies more than I did even with the low price and decent deductibles that RWS hadI might've found one that actually follows through with claims but I guess I got what I paid for with this one
I filed a claim near the end of my warranty term and was assured the check would be sent within the specified time limit (I believe up to days)I followed up with Josh who kept magically "losing" the email with the photo of the invoice I'd sent.This went on a couple of times before I called and asked to speak to a supervisor regarding my claim
I'm not sure if this person was a supervisor or not but I sent him my information and correct mailing address and the same photo of the invoice for my repairHe assured me a check for the claim amount minus the deductible would be mailed to me that FridayIt's now been over two weeks since I've heard from this person and still nothing in the mailI've sent a follow up email and nothingNo reply
Revdex.com of Central Indiana
N Delaware Street #
Indianapolis
IN 46204-
RE: Complaint #***
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of the complaint filed by *** ** in regards to her
day warranty claim on the foundation of her home.
On 7/7/we received a claim via email for an issue with the
foundation of her home. The homeowner
provided us with the information requested.
While processing her claim we found that there were structural issues
noted in her inspection report (attachment 1).
The day warranty states “All structural coverage is limited to an
aggregate maximum of $2000.00”. I have attached a copy of the day warranty
terms (attachment 2) showing that we cover items that were confirmed to be in
good working order at time of inspection.
We sincerely regret any inconvenience that Ms. ** may have experienced
with his claim; however, Residential Warranty Services made an exception to
typical procedures by covering items that would not normally be covered. We are issuing the homeowner a check in the
amount of $even though we are not contractually obligated to cover any issues that
were noted in the home inspection
Sincerely,
*** ***
Director of Warranty Operations
Residential Warranty Services, INC
www.rwswarranty.com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Their response does not at all respond to my complaint; I am not arguing whether or not my claim should have been approved and I am not disputing their policyI am complaining because two (2) different employees told me that my claim had been approvedAs a result of my follquestions, they both instructed me to have the work done, which I did; I spent $dollars based on the word of these employees, only to be told later that my claim was not approvedSo, I am complaining because this company has no integrity, and does not stand by their wordFrom my perspective, it seems that this company lied to me - a lie that resulted in $This is an unacceptable way to treat a client; it is an unacceptable way to treat any personAll the information I provided them was true; on that morning, my hot water was not working - the reason is still unknownWhen the plumber came, it was workingThe plumber's note had all the facts, and they had all of this information when they told me that my claim had been approvedThey had the exact same information when they approved my claim as they did when they rejected it.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI couldn't respond to their email So I was given your email to send to you I have complied with what they have requestedI have given them estimates and when I called the contractors after the last emailThey said that their estimates are broke down and if RWS has any questions in regards to what they are charging for that they need to contact them directlyRWS is just giving me the run around and not wanting to payRWS has more excuses,so this issue will never be resolved to satisfactionTell them to send me the original $that they approved me for. ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
The phone message with your director/manager is recordedI suggest you play back that tape and see why I filled a complaint with the Revdex.com immediately following that callYou are being dishonest in your reply as wellYou offered me $and told me I owe you 2 separate $150 deductiblesI told you I was open to having the machine repaired or replacedI don't careI just want it to workI suggested that having the dishwasher replaced probably makes the most sense for several reasons: One, it will save your company money as a new dishwasher is significantly cheaper than repairsthe state of the dishwasher doesn't really warrant fixing it as it will likely fail again in the near futureI don't expect you to buy me a brand spanking new Bosch dishwasher, but I do expect a fair payout$on top of the deductible is completely ridiculousI told your director I would settle for $I got a quote on a comparable dishwasher from 2 sources (sears and recker and boerger)The price of a new comparable machine is $and $(installed) respectively.
The fact that you also are trying to make me pay two separate $deductibles for ONE broken dishwasher is laughableThere was only one service call madePer the contract, RWS is welcome to have a second opinions from one of their own trusted professionalsI am happy to accommodate that
Based on their response, it is clear they would rather demagogue me than try to work out a resolutionTo me this reflects their character.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Please find second estimate attached.
Again, I am willing to settle for $buy out or having the dishwasher repaired at the cost of one deductible (Thus far I have paid $of my $deductibleSee attached)While you may have ambiguously stated in the contract that you are able to charge multiple deductibles, I find this unreasonable for one broken dishwasher (and at the time only one service call).
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Claim was filed strictly according to RWS's requirement and they acknowledged it (July 7th, 2014)Claim is egitimatePlease find in the attachment the photos of the distorted door/frame, fracture/cracks in the wall and estimate for repair($2,for the door, and $23,for the foundation)Also please see the inspection report (which was also forwarded by RWS) , Page Item I: it was marked "There are no significant cracks or movement noted at this time"The last page of the report is the contract regarding RWS coverageNeither the deformed door nor the foundation was brought up in the reportAs matter of fact, both the window company and foundation company were very surprised the inspector did not disclose these very obvious items (Broad day light, no obstruction at all)
Instead of honoring what has been put down on paper "All structural coverage is limited to issues within the home’s foundations and is limited to an aggregate maximum of $2000.00." RWS did not repsond till AUG 18th, with a fraction of the $according to the contract-- $500, of which till this day we have seen noneThey vaguely states "item not covered for the $2000", but failed to specifically say which one is not coveredBoth of these items are strictly structural and nothing else"Structural Coverage Summary: Poured Concrete & Block Wall FoundationsFloor joists, bottom & top plates, and wall members."
After I sent out my rebuttal letter on Aug 25th, 2014, RWS has shut its reponse channels downI sent out multiple inquires/phone messages, but was not successful in getting a responsePlease see attached email messages
In all, RWS has not been responding my legitimate claim in a professional mannerThe $2,due according to the contract is only a fraction of the cost needed for the inspection-missed item repairWe are awaiting the payment to start the repair
Regards,
*** **
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowThere were no work done except to the service guys determined the AC need replacementNo freon was added except a very little to charge the system (per service guy)RWS is totally making up that or some ridiculous amount of freon was addedRWS can not even produce the invoice with cost of freon added, because they did notLet RWS produce what the exact amount in invoice that reflects freon costOnly thing in the invoice is the deductible amount of $
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I did not call in the claim March11th, I faxed it to Travis a claims person at 10:am with pages of what they wanted! And they lost it and I sent it again a month later by US mail! The Termite inspector only gave my the Cover page that only has their name and phone number on it! Even talking with two or three other claims people over the weeks of calling, the $never came up until they called two months later that the $would be deducted from the $Plus I paid $for a total home inspectionYes I did tell them if I had to go to court I would ask for all my money back from this house transaction! I feel I was ripped off again! The termites is just one problems that has come up with this house! Electrical, Plumbing, Refrigeratorfloors and sprinklers Regards,
*** ***
This homeowner filed this claim on June 2016, and provided us with an invoice on the 17th - we are not even a week past the date we received the estimate and the
homeowner is filing a Revdex.com complaint.The homeowner needs to be aware of the terms of her warranty, which states “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor ... without prior authorization”Your contractor will need to get approval from RWS before any repairs are made or costs are incurred, as you were told previously and as you are aware of, per your initial Revdex.com submissionIf you move forward with this repair without authorization, RWS will not be liable for any costs associated theretoHowever, based on the circumstances, and our desire to garner complete customer satisfaction from this homeowner, this claim is now being personally handled by the Warranty Director, and she will be receiving a call today to get her claim moved forward
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear
RWS claims I put a claim in for a clogged drain and that is falseWhen it was determined that the they needed further information for the claim they did contact the plumber and asked and explained the information they needed to proceed with the claim the plumber then sent the information needed to RWS in full detail and the issues that were going onI had two separate issues going on with a hole in the kitchen drain and roots going through a sewage line, both causing clogged linesIn reference to the phone calls there was no abuse on the line and if recorded maybe someone should listen to the phone calls to verify the callsIt was not until I posted my experience on Facebook and had many repaonses from people, that the owner of the inspection company called me back after two months and the new director of RWS decided to call me backI tried to contact the two people handling my claim for a month and a half and was given an excuse for a month and a half prior to thatTerrible customer service and now they try to put it on the customer.
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis IN 46204Re: Complaint ID ***To Whom It May Concern:I apologize that Ms*** is not happy with the $that we have offered for the portion of the warranty that Residential Warranty Services, Incis responsible for As previously stated we are following the terms of warranty The homeowner signed and returned a form to us acknowledging that she has read and understood the warranty.For reference I have attached a copy of the warranty and the policy notice with the homeowner’s signature.Per the terms of our warranty the limits of liability #& #state:# “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a policyholder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s) The payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail.”# RWS shall be responsible only for the costs of installation of a similar part in the case of an obsolete or unavailable part.”The warranty clearly states we are only responsible for the defective part(s) When parts are not available we will take the average cost of a similar part (which is stated in #10) for pricing of the cash payment It does not say that we will provide a similar part just that we are responsible for the cost of a similar part.Sincerely,*** ***Director of OperationsResidential Warranty Services