Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
"It should also be noted that the 22 August claim lists no failures or issues, and neither does the corresponding contractor’s invoice. Yet, in her Revdex.com complaint, the homeowner is stating that her entire system failed not even 3 days later, at which point she chose to replace it in its entirety, instead of filing a second claim and having a contractor return to the home to determine what caused the entire unit to fail completely. Had the homeowner done this, thereby following warranty procedures, there is a strong possibility that her warranty would have resulted in a higher buyout check or even covered the entire replacement of her A/C unit. Instead, she took a system that had no failures 3 days prior and replaced it without diagnosis and without informing RWS. “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the Contract Holder without prior authorization” and “Contract Holder’s contractors contacted prior to making a claim with RWS and without prior authorization will not be considered for servicing any claim, nor will any bill be reimbursed”."
Above is a quoted response from RWS. I went back through the timeline, and like I said in my complaint, I called TWICE. Once Monday morning as a return call. I was told I would get a call back later that day as to whether or not my repairs would be covered. NO ONE CALLED. I came home Monday night, and my system had completely stopped working. I called again Tuesday morning, and explained that my system had completely failed the night before (which is filing a second claim). I was again told that I would get a call back later that day and NO ONE CALLED. No one at RWS cared that my system was out. No one made the effort to call the customer back in a timely manner to either approve/deny the repairs on the first claim OR schedule a service call on my second claim that the unit had failed. Not one return call even though I was told two days in a row that I would receive one. I gave up and decided to replace the builders unit that was older than it's expected life of 10-12 years myself since no one at RWS was willing to service my claim and help restore A/C to my house in the heat of summer. What was I supposed to do, keep calling RWS every day for a week or two and getting told someone would call me back and then never receive a return call while my A/C is out and the health of my family is jeopardized? How long before someone at RWS would actually respond to either of my claims?
Had I not made an effort to call and explain that my A/C unit failed, I could somewhat understand a smaller check. However, that is not what happened, and I should not be penalized because no one at RWS called me back to service my claim.
Furthermore, no one at RWS bothered to call and say they decided to offer a buyout. There was no communication whatsoever until I called back 2 weeks later to complain at which point I was informed of a $1000 buyout check which would be cut no later than October 7. Like I said before, a decision to reduce the buyout on October 13 AFTER the due date for the check is not acceptable after having six weeks to review the claim. It is also unacceptable to make no proactive communication to the customer about any of the claim decisions.
Regards,
[redacted]
First occurrence we scheduled technician to come out to inspect electric water heater. For those that don't know there are at most 4 parts to check (2 heating elements and 2 thermostats). The issue was it wouldn't heat water longer than 8-10min. The tech verified both elements, then being we had hot water for a little the idea thought was the top thermostat must have worked so they replaced the bottom. That night it seemed to be ok and in the morning it was a cold shower. This is Saturday and you have to pay a premium for the weekend... So we went w/o and Monday still waiting and they say being it would be a separate issue it is another deductible? How is that if all they thought to change was a thermostat so I'm at fault for their incompetence or I need them to sleep in there car so it's not another instance? This is really backwards. So basically I am getting hit 2x the deduct one to try and the other to confirm it doesn't freaking work.
The homeowner filed this claim on 28 April 2016 yet did not submit a diagnosis and estimate until 13 May 2016. Furthermore, the estimate was not itemized, as required by our policy. However, our claims representatives went above and beyond their duties and...
contacted the contractor directly to determine the breakdowns of each line item. Based on that conversation, it was made clear that the contractor had:(1) made the mistake of including both a repair of the homeowner’s shower (which included non-covered items such as tile) and a complete replacement of the shower on the estimate, mis-marking one as a simple shower valve – a mistake that was supported by their earlier correct description on the diagnosis sheet. This mistake was fixed and the amount of a shower valve replacement, $350 for parts and labor, was approved in full;
(2) included two services that are not covered by the homeowner’s policy (page 4 delineates that plumbing stoppages (clogs) are not covered, and the only services re: toilets that are covered are the assembly parts in the tank). Therefore, the cable drain and toilet pull costs were removed; and finally
(3) failed to include his diagnosis fee in the estimate, and so RWS added that amount on to her buyout
Furthermore, the defect itself is the only thing covered because RWS does not cover consequential damage or secondary damage - please review your policy for details. Therefore, the homeowner is actually receiving the entirety the faucet replacement and the cost of a shower valve replacement, minus her deductibles, plus her diagnosis fee and the check has already been submitted for processing. HOWEVER, because RWS holds customer satisfaction so high, the homeowner may speak with her contractor and have them submit an itemized and corrected estimate for our review as we are more than happy to re-review the claim to ensure the homeowner is getting the highest amount possible. If this is your preference, RWS must be informed by the end of this week so we can freeze the current claim and re-open your claim.
As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her home. Logically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. Therefore, while RWS may, based on a homeowner’s description of the issue, be able to give an idea as to whether it may or may not be covered, there is no guarantee until the documentation has been received. This claim was properly denied pursuant to the terms of the policy and, as no new information has been offered during the course of these Revdex.com correspondences, the claim will remain denied.
23 October 201 5 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS") regarding Mr. [redacted] at [redacted]. Upon review of his complaint, it appears that the homeowner, unhappy with the coverage his RWS Warranty provided for his flooded basement, took it upon himself to negotiate a "side deal" with the contractor at his home, which has led to the issues in his complaint. Per the homeowner's warranty coverage, RWS installed a sump pump that the homeowner, evident in his complaint, deemed to be inferior to the sump pump that had failed. As a result, per the homeowner's own words "the subcontractor stated that he can install a real good primary and secondary sump pump for $950 plus $50 for the deductible, which brought the total amount that I will pay him to $1,000. I agreed." By the homeowner's own statement and understanding that this was a side deal not included in the RWS warranty coverage, RWS is in no way responsible, financially or otherwise, for any disputes regarding that side deal. Even the homeowner's argument of "but for [the RWS manager's] actions I would have no dealings with [subcontractor]" holds no weight because the homeowner was under no obligation to make a separate, side deal with any contractor RWS sends out. RWS contractors are dispatched to homes to diagnose the problem and act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the homeowner's RWS warranty. This homeowner voluntarily chose to interfere with that arrangement and negotiate a separate deal - a deal that did not include RWS, that RWS did not approve of, that RWS was unaware of until the homeowner's phone call after the fact, and a deal that, as a result, RWS has zero responsibility for. Additionally, because RWS holds customer satisfaction so high, RWS representatives, once notified of the side deal by the homeowner, did all they could to help the contractor and the homeowner towards a resolution. Unfortunately, the homeowner took advantage of this professionalism and, despite being told repeatedly that his side deal did not involve RWS, took it upon himself to uninstall the secondary system and mail it to RWS headquarters. Upon receipt, RWS reached out to the contractor who, albeit confused, because the system should have been returned to him, not RWS, personally picked up the system from RWS. In conclusion, as the homeowner was told repeatedly by a RWS manager, his issue lies exclusively between himself and the contractor he hired, outside of his warranty obligations, to perform additional work on his home. Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Alix L. V[redacted], Esq. General Counsel - Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) al ix@al I xv[redacted]com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In response to each of their individual statements in their message, I have come up with a response to each piece that is not accurate according to their business documentation and the way they function.The claim was NOT justly handled under their terms. Their terms are very vague and not defined with what they seem to have just stated; they do not discuss great detail per claim in their coverage binder.1) On a claim to be covered in their state (Indiana) most likely does not meet the cost of a claim to be covered in my state (New Jersey). In essence, the cost of parts & labor in the state of New Jersey is most likely more expensive than other states, and I'm sure New Jersey is not the same nor cheaper claim cost than Indiana may be. A great example is one previous claim regarding our hot water heater. The cost to replace was $2,200. I was only reimbursed "the max" of $1,000. Their policy document, in the binder of documentation sent to us, states the "Aggregate Limit of Liability" for plumbing is $5,000. I was not covered even half that much, yet on this instance I allowed their less than half coverage on this particular instance and also had to scan/email/fax them a receipt stating that it did cost $2,200 (for their file) but obviously wasn't even covered half that.2) I did receive the check of $1,100 for the furnace in need of replacement, but I DID NOT "accept" or cash this check yet because in disagreement of their coverage. The lowest estimated cost, that I was required by them to personally get quotes for them, was $3,500 (as previously stated).3) I had to "go out on my own" because I was not able to use "their service" to get contractors to quote/estimate AND fix needed repairs. This obviously is time and effort on my part and not a means of including this part in their supposed service. In other words, its time and effort on my part rather than allowed use the service that was purchased to do so.4) They stated, "Firstly, the policy only covers repair or replacement of the defective part...". This defective part, as noted from day one, is the furnace IN WHOLE, the entire unite which is approximately 18 years old. There was never any "part" specified as this was originally noted to be the entire unit. And to note, luckily this house has a multi zone HVAC system (first floor zone/unit and second floor zone/unit). So with that said, we luckily got by so far with only having the one of two furnaces fully functionally work for now (as it is just as old) to "support" the home's heating.5) The history of this claim is fully noted because they are supposedly to mail a check within 30 business days. The process obviously took way too long and in addition they required me to do a lot of the "work and effort". The history of the "work" done on this claim is as follows: Day 1 - claim started on February 17th when it was called in Day 8 - spoke with a representative at RWS on February 26th to fully work this out Day 16 - First quote sent to them on March 10th Day 19 - Second quote sent to them on March 13th Day 20 - Third quote sent to them on March 16th Day 21 - email from representative on March 17th that it is being reviewed Day 25 - my wife called on March 23rd to try to follow up and see what was taking so long Day 39 - The check for $1,100 was dated April 10th (over 30 days from the first call), but not sure when it was sent or exactly when it was received (though obviously received after April 10th). No idea why they sent the check and this specific amount since we did not discuss nor agree on a coverage of the cost with their warranty services, even though I sent many local service quotes to them prior to this. Day 44 - called multiple times on April 17th to try and speak with a representative Day 46 - possibly on April 21st the day that the check for only $1,100 was received Day 48 - April 23rd was just one of many prior times that I had called and was transferred to the manager's voicemail, left a message, yet no call back Day 49 - again, April 24th, transferred to the manager's voicemail, left a message, and still no call backAlso, with each call, I had specifically stated that I left voicemails to the manager and still have not received a call back. This was never handled any other way but to continually transfer me to the manager's voicemail. Day 51 - the complaint sent to Revdex.com on April 28th Day 57 - the message reply received regarding my complaint on May 6th (6 business days after complaint sent) Day 61 - this message reply being sent on May 12th regarding my reply to their reply (4 business days after)6) The policy DOES NOT have any wording to what they cover other than generally stating a listing of "Aggregate Limit of Liability". This is simply read that any quotes received are to be covered because they are under the limit. Why was it stated that "...we have no obligation to pay out entirely for every claim we receive.", yet I was required to go out and get these quotes/estimates on my own, per their need to supposedly and properly "run" their business. Given that, they should agree with what I was able to come up with and in due time.7) This seems like a typo by them, but they did state "By accepting the cash payment of 51,100 made on this claim, the claim has been paid, and closed, in accordance with the policy." I obviously did not get a check for $51,100 but it was for $1,100. This claim should not have been closed because this was not stated between me and the representative I spoke with numerous times. And I do not see anything proper that this all is "in accordance with the policy". One of the main issues, again, is that they can only do "cash payment in lieu of repair/replacement", but it does not suffice. This was discussed numerous times with the representative, yet no final conclusion made with regards to the estimates and actual cost required to repair the furnace.Please read through all these items and please come to a proper negotiation for this claim with the lowest estimate ($3,500) that I was able to personally obtain and send for your "service" that is required to fix the furnace.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
We had 2 contractors come out and look at the water heater. The first one, Mr. Rooter, came out on April 26th. He suggested the tank be replaced and moved to a new location. When we spoke to RWS, we were told that they would cover up to $750 for the tank and labor. The lady on the phone said she felt that he was overcharging. So on April 29th we had the contractor that RWS had chosen, Eaton Plumbing, come out and look at it. They also determined that the tank needed replaced. When Eaton plumbing contacted RWS they said that they would not cover the repair so I called RWS to find out why. I was told they would not cover repair due to a leak during the first 30 days. I called Eaton Plumbing back and told the lady what RWS told me. She said that there wasn't a leak and that there must have been a misunderstanding and she called RWS back. Eaton Plumbing then called me again and said that RWS said that they would cover $800 of the repair. We still felt though that they were charging too much to do the replacement and chose to not have them do the repair. We did however still pay the $75 deductible. After The contractor left I looked through our booklet from RWS again and read where it said under rights of the customer that we "may request cash in leu of repair" and that same day, April 29th I called RWS and told them that I wanted to request the cash. I was told that was fine and I would be sent a check. When I questioned the man on the phone and said "so they are just going to send me a check?", he said yes. That he would submit the claim that day and it could take up to 30 days. I asked him if he knew how much it would be for and he said $800. After not receiving a check in the mail I contacted RWS in June and was told that they had no record of that conversation. How do they not have any record of the multiple phone calls that day? No where in their booklet does it say that in order to request cash that they need an invoice. And there was no alterations to the water heater. Also, I never sent RWS an invoice so I am not sure what they are talking about. This is just further proof of what a dishonest company this is. I am attaching a copy of the invoice we have from Eaton Olumbing that proves that we did pay the $75 deductible and that they did come out on the 29th. I don't understand how RWS can say that they would pay up to $800 towards the replacement and then say that the claim was denied.
Regards,
[redacted]
Because purchasing a home can be daunting, RWS offers a free mold protection warranty to guarantee home inspector findings and give homeowners additional...
protection as circumstances sometimes can change between the home inspection and the move-in date. The warranty works as follows: if an inspection report states there are no mold or moisture issues in the home, and the homeowner moves in and finds visible mold that should have been seen, the warranty would cover its removal and remediation. What the warranty does NOT cover is a homeowner who receives a report that clearly states multiple mold/moisture issues throughout the home, purchases the home regardless, and then tries submit a mold claim under the warranty.
The homeowner, in his complaint, states that “a small area of mold was identified elsewhere” and “trace amounts of mold were identified” as his reasoning as to why RWS should pay for his claim yet his inspection report tells another story: The home inspector listed that a “possible organic substance [i.e. mold] noted” [emp. added] in several locations, further stating his recommendation to “test and remove”. These locations include the (1) garage (visible in multiple areas) and (2) basement / crawlspace (also sighted in multiple areas).
The warranty clearly states “… the following conditions are covered: (1) New visible mold – During the course of your home inspection and in your home inspection report, if there were no visible mold or moisture issues reported, this agreement covers the remediation (removal) of visible mold on surfaces permanently installed in the subject property” [emp. added]. As a result, because the home inspector had already indicated that potential mold growths were visible in multiple areas of the home during the home inspection, this claim is immediately ineligible for coverage. Furthermore, the homeowner is attempting to claim coverage for 'significant mold found in garage', even when his inspection report specifically mentions multiple instances of visible mold found in the garage.
Therefore, Mr. [redacted] was clearly aware that his home had significant , multiple mold and moisture issues prior to purchasing it, yet he bought the home regardless. While this is certainly his choice, he cannot then turn around and claim that RWS ‘would not provide any mold warranty at all’, when his claim is clearly denied due to numerous reasons, some of which are listed above.
Tell us why here...
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. Although, I am not completely in agreement with the response as a whole I willing to omit certain transgression in order to move forward in this business agreement.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], 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 'receipt' that the RWS has was an initial estimate that was submitted to agent Aaron S[redacted] PRIOR to any work being started. Mr. S[redacted] issued an approval of the estimate while the contractor was still at the home so the work could be completed Mr. s[redacted] also approved payment of this claim via email. If this is not the company's policy on approving claims, the agent needs to be trained. However, as this repair was not critical to the functioning of the home, I would have elected to not get the work done if Mr. S[redacted] had followed the company's policy and informed me it was an uncovered repair. Therefore I reject this reply because the 'estimate' was approved prior to work being completed. I have 2 witnesses to this fact.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner, in his complaint to the Revdex.com, makes a series of accusations ranging from “contract breaches” to “failure to pay claims”, all of which are serious accusations that have never occurred with regards to ANY...
of the homeowner’s claims, all of which are broken down below: Claim #1: Garage Door. This was the primary complaint the homeowner described in his Revdex.com submission. It is true that his claim was approved, and it is true that a check was mailed. Unfortunately, the check must have been lost in the mail as we have documentation it was mailed, but, after being made aware of the homeowner’s complaint, no documentation it has been cashed. As a result, a new check was cut immediately and was mailed today. If the homeowner has not received it by mid-next week, please contact the company and ask for the Director of Operations, who has been tasked with personally ensuring the money reaches you expeditiously. Claim #2: Structural. The homeowner was notified that this claim was denied on 05 October 2015. While this claim is prima facie outside the scope of the warranty, made clear by the ‘structural coverage summary’, the homeowner has also stated that this claim was “missed by the inspector”. As the warranty only covers items that were “confirmed to be in good working condition at time of inspection, and excludes all others” [emp. added], anything the inspector missed is not covered by the warranty. However, RWS operates in good faith at all times and, though the homeowner’s own statement denies coverage, RWS has reason to believe the homeowner was mistaken and it was NOT missed by the home inspection. Unfortunately, because the Home Inspector noted the flooring (page 19) as “flooring was wavy or not level in some areas”, a claim to fix a ‘wavy or not level floor’ as this claim states, is still excluded from coverage. Claim #3: Air Conditioner. The air conditioner claim was denied because the warranty clearly states “This contract excludes all appliances, climate control systems, and fixtures over 10 years old”. The homeowner’s air conditioner was made in 1992, making the air conditioner twenty-four (24) years old and so clearly outside the scope of the warranty. Claim #4: Ceiling Fan. This claim was denied because the home inspection clearly noted that the light was not working at the time of inspection. Per the terms of the warranty “This contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others”. As the electrical system was stated as “requiring repair, replacement, and/or evaluation”, the flickering light is not covered under this warranty. To expand, the home inspection report clearly puts the homeowner on notice of lighting issues by stating “one or more overcurrent protection devices… were ‘double-tapped’, where 2 or more wires were clamped in a terminal designed for only one wire. This is a safety hazard since the bolt or screw may tighten securely against one wire, but leave others loose… A qualified electrician should evaluate and repair as necessary.” As the only estimate turned in gives no diagnosis (it only shows the contractor scheduling a time to diagnose) it is the homeowner’s responsibility to turn in the diagnosis so RWS can re-evaluate this claim, if necessary.
I purchased a house in January of 2015, the microwave was not working when I moved in so I was referred to Residential Warranty Services Inc, 90days warranty. I sent the estimate of the repair within the time limit and received a lettter stating that the claim was approved. I wait for almost a month and since I didn't receive a check, I called [redacted] the claim representative. she never returned any of my phone calls. finally, I spoke with customer service asking for a supervisor, she told me it was [redacted]. when she finally got on the phone was extremely rude and when I ask her what the check was taking so long she got upset and told me it was not until the end of March that the check might be issue. when I ask for the Corporate person to file a complaint, she just hung up the phone.
Firstly, please be aware that it is not RWS standard practice to include tracking numbers with our claims payout. We mail hundreds of checks weekly and, due to the costs of tracking, RWS always leaves it up to...
the homeowner to determine if they’d like their payment tracked, which would result in the tracking cost being deducted from their approved amount. Otherwise, we mail the checks and, if notified they have not been received, we do all we can to get the homeowner’s money to them as quickly as possible, at no cost to the homeowner.
The check for this claim was mailed in March but, because the homeowner has not received it and we have no indication it has been cashed, RWS has re-issued the check and re-mailed it. When you receive the check, please call us and let us know the check number so that we can cancel the not-yet-received check. Also, please be aware that you will be receiving a total of $1750.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
The Director of Operations has stated that you reached out to him with regards to scheduling the repairin lieu of your previously-requested buyout. As your claim is still going through the processing stages due to the change and nothing may progress until the contractor's appointment, it appears no response is necessary to this complaint at this time.
However, please be aware that the warranty has clearly disclosed terms and conditions detailing the exact issues you have complained about here: potential multiple deductibles, buyout amounts lower than retail, etc. Please reread the warranty thoroughly so you understand its restrictions, which you agreed to upon your purchase of this warranty.
As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her home. Logically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. Therefore, while RWS may, based on a homeowner’s description of the issue, be able to give an idea as to whether it may or may not be covered, there is no guarantee until the documentation has been received.
This claim was properly denied pursuant to the terms of the policy and, as no new information has been offered during the course of these Revdex.com correspondences, the claim will remain denied.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
"It should also be noted that the 22 August claim lists no failures or issues, and neither does the corresponding contractor’s invoice. Yet, in her Revdex.com complaint, the homeowner is stating that her entire system failed not even 3 days later, at which point she chose to replace it in its entirety, instead of filing a second claim and having a contractor return to the home to determine what caused the entire unit to fail completely. Had the homeowner done this, thereby following warranty procedures, there is a strong possibility that her warranty would have resulted in a higher buyout check or even covered the entire replacement of her A/C unit. Instead, she took a system that had no failures 3 days prior and replaced it without diagnosis and without informing RWS. “RWS will not be liable for any costs associated with a contractor selected by the Contract Holder without prior authorization” and “Contract Holder’s contractors contacted prior to making a claim with RWS and without prior authorization will not be considered for servicing any claim, nor will any bill be reimbursed”."
Above is a quoted response from RWS. I went back through the timeline, and like I said in my complaint, I called TWICE. Once Monday morning as a return call. I was told I would get a call back later that day as to whether or not my repairs would be covered. NO ONE CALLED. I came home Monday night, and my system had completely stopped working. I called again Tuesday morning, and explained that my system had completely failed the night before (which is filing a second claim). I was again told that I would get a call back later that day and NO ONE CALLED. No one at RWS cared that my system was out. No one made the effort to call the customer back in a timely manner to either approve/deny the repairs on the first claim OR schedule a service call on my second claim that the unit had failed. Not one return call even though I was told two days in a row that I would receive one. I gave up and decided to replace the builders unit that was older than it's expected life of 10-12 years myself since no one at RWS was willing to service my claim and help restore A/C to my house in the heat of summer. What was I supposed to do, keep calling RWS every day for a week or two and getting told someone would call me back and then never receive a return call while my A/C is out and the health of my family is jeopardized? How long before someone at RWS would actually respond to either of my claims?
Had I not made an effort to call and explain that my A/C unit failed, I could somewhat understand a smaller check. However, that is not what happened, and I should not be penalized because no one at RWS called me back to service my claim.
Furthermore, no one at RWS bothered to call and say they decided to offer a buyout. There was no communication whatsoever until I called back 2 weeks later to complain at which point I was informed of a $1000 buyout check which would be cut no later than October 7. Like I said before, a decision to reduce the buyout on October 13 AFTER the due date for the check is not acceptable after having six weeks to review the claim. It is also unacceptable to make no proactive communication to the customer about any of the claim decisions.
Regards,
[redacted]
First occurrence we scheduled technician to come out to inspect electric water heater. For those that don't know there are at most 4 parts to check (2 heating elements and 2 thermostats). The issue was it wouldn't heat water longer than 8-10min. The tech verified both elements, then being we had hot water for a little the idea thought was the top thermostat must have worked so they replaced the bottom. That night it seemed to be ok and in the morning it was a cold shower. This is Saturday and you have to pay a premium for the weekend... So we went w/o and Monday still waiting and they say being it would be a separate issue it is another deductible? How is that if all they thought to change was a thermostat so I'm at fault for their incompetence or I need them to sleep in there car so it's not another instance? This is really backwards. So basically I am getting hit 2x the deduct one to try and the other to confirm it doesn't freaking work.
The homeowner filed this claim on 28 April 2016 yet did not submit a diagnosis and estimate until 13 May 2016. Furthermore, the estimate was not itemized, as required by our policy. However, our claims representatives went above and beyond their duties and...
contacted the contractor directly to determine the breakdowns of each line item. Based on that conversation, it was made clear that the contractor had:(1) made the mistake of including both a repair of the homeowner’s shower (which included non-covered items such as tile) and a complete replacement of the shower on the estimate, mis-marking one as a simple shower valve – a mistake that was supported by their earlier correct description on the diagnosis sheet. This mistake was fixed and the amount of a shower valve replacement, $350 for parts and labor, was approved in full;
(2) included two services that are not covered by the homeowner’s policy (page 4 delineates that plumbing stoppages (clogs) are not covered, and the only services re: toilets that are covered are the assembly parts in the tank). Therefore, the cable drain and toilet pull costs were removed; and finally
(3) failed to include his diagnosis fee in the estimate, and so RWS added that amount on to her buyout
Furthermore, the defect itself is the only thing covered because RWS does not cover consequential damage or secondary damage - please review your policy for details. Therefore, the homeowner is actually receiving the entirety the faucet replacement and the cost of a shower valve replacement, minus her deductibles, plus her diagnosis fee and the check has already been submitted for processing. HOWEVER, because RWS holds customer satisfaction so high, the homeowner may speak with her contractor and have them submit an itemized and corrected estimate for our review as we are more than happy to re-review the claim to ensure the homeowner is getting the highest amount possible. If this is your preference, RWS must be informed by the end of this week so we can freeze the current claim and re-open your claim.
As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her home. Logically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. Therefore, while RWS may, based on a homeowner’s description of the issue, be able to give an idea as to whether it may or may not be covered, there is no guarantee until the documentation has been received. This claim was properly denied pursuant to the terms of the policy and, as no new information has been offered during the course of these Revdex.com correspondences, the claim will remain denied.
Thank you for your...
23 October 201 5 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS") regarding Mr. [redacted] at [redacted]. Upon review of his complaint, it appears that the homeowner, unhappy with the coverage his RWS Warranty provided for his flooded basement, took it upon himself to negotiate a "side deal" with the contractor at his home, which has led to the issues in his complaint. Per the homeowner's warranty coverage, RWS installed a sump pump that the homeowner, evident in his complaint, deemed to be inferior to the sump pump that had failed. As a result, per the homeowner's own words "the subcontractor stated that he can install a real good primary and secondary sump pump for $950 plus $50 for the deductible, which brought the total amount that I will pay him to $1,000. I agreed." By the homeowner's own statement and understanding that this was a side deal not included in the RWS warranty coverage, RWS is in no way responsible, financially or otherwise, for any disputes regarding that side deal. Even the homeowner's argument of "but for [the RWS manager's] actions I would have no dealings with [subcontractor]" holds no weight because the homeowner was under no obligation to make a separate, side deal with any contractor RWS sends out. RWS contractors are dispatched to homes to diagnose the problem and act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the homeowner's RWS warranty. This homeowner voluntarily chose to interfere with that arrangement and negotiate a separate deal - a deal that did not include RWS, that RWS did not approve of, that RWS was unaware of until the homeowner's phone call after the fact, and a deal that, as a result, RWS has zero responsibility for. Additionally, because RWS holds customer satisfaction so high, RWS representatives, once notified of the side deal by the homeowner, did all they could to help the contractor and the homeowner towards a resolution. Unfortunately, the homeowner took advantage of this professionalism and, despite being told repeatedly that his side deal did not involve RWS, took it upon himself to uninstall the secondary system and mail it to RWS headquarters. Upon receipt, RWS reached out to the contractor who, albeit confused, because the system should have been returned to him, not RWS, personally picked up the system from RWS. In conclusion, as the homeowner was told repeatedly by a RWS manager, his issue lies exclusively between himself and the contractor he hired, outside of his warranty obligations, to perform additional work on his home. Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Alix L. V[redacted], Esq. General Counsel - Residential Warranty Services, Inc. 698 Pro Med Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) al ix@al I xv[redacted]com
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In response to each of their individual statements in their message, I have come up with a response to each piece that is not accurate according to their business documentation and the way they function.The claim was NOT justly handled under their terms. Their terms are very vague and not defined with what they seem to have just stated; they do not discuss great detail per claim in their coverage binder.1) On a claim to be covered in their state (Indiana) most likely does not meet the cost of a claim to be covered in my state (New Jersey). In essence, the cost of parts & labor in the state of New Jersey is most likely more expensive than other states, and I'm sure New Jersey is not the same nor cheaper claim cost than Indiana may be. A great example is one previous claim regarding our hot water heater. The cost to replace was $2,200. I was only reimbursed "the max" of $1,000. Their policy document, in the binder of documentation sent to us, states the "Aggregate Limit of Liability" for plumbing is $5,000. I was not covered even half that much, yet on this instance I allowed their less than half coverage on this particular instance and also had to scan/email/fax them a receipt stating that it did cost $2,200 (for their file) but obviously wasn't even covered half that.2) I did receive the check of $1,100 for the furnace in need of replacement, but I DID NOT "accept" or cash this check yet because in disagreement of their coverage. The lowest estimated cost, that I was required by them to personally get quotes for them, was $3,500 (as previously stated).3) I had to "go out on my own" because I was not able to use "their service" to get contractors to quote/estimate AND fix needed repairs. This obviously is time and effort on my part and not a means of including this part in their supposed service. In other words, its time and effort on my part rather than allowed use the service that was purchased to do so.4) They stated, "Firstly, the policy only covers repair or replacement of the defective part...". This defective part, as noted from day one, is the furnace IN WHOLE, the entire unite which is approximately 18 years old. There was never any "part" specified as this was originally noted to be the entire unit. And to note, luckily this house has a multi zone HVAC system (first floor zone/unit and second floor zone/unit). So with that said, we luckily got by so far with only having the one of two furnaces fully functionally work for now (as it is just as old) to "support" the home's heating.5) The history of this claim is fully noted because they are supposedly to mail a check within 30 business days. The process obviously took way too long and in addition they required me to do a lot of the "work and effort". The history of the "work" done on this claim is as follows: Day 1 - claim started on February 17th when it was called in Day 8 - spoke with a representative at RWS on February 26th to fully work this out Day 16 - First quote sent to them on March 10th Day 19 - Second quote sent to them on March 13th Day 20 - Third quote sent to them on March 16th Day 21 - email from representative on March 17th that it is being reviewed Day 25 - my wife called on March 23rd to try to follow up and see what was taking so long Day 39 - The check for $1,100 was dated April 10th (over 30 days from the first call), but not sure when it was sent or exactly when it was received (though obviously received after April 10th). No idea why they sent the check and this specific amount since we did not discuss nor agree on a coverage of the cost with their warranty services, even though I sent many local service quotes to them prior to this. Day 44 - called multiple times on April 17th to try and speak with a representative Day 46 - possibly on April 21st the day that the check for only $1,100 was received Day 48 - April 23rd was just one of many prior times that I had called and was transferred to the manager's voicemail, left a message, yet no call back Day 49 - again, April 24th, transferred to the manager's voicemail, left a message, and still no call backAlso, with each call, I had specifically stated that I left voicemails to the manager and still have not received a call back. This was never handled any other way but to continually transfer me to the manager's voicemail. Day 51 - the complaint sent to Revdex.com on April 28th Day 57 - the message reply received regarding my complaint on May 6th (6 business days after complaint sent) Day 61 - this message reply being sent on May 12th regarding my reply to their reply (4 business days after)6) The policy DOES NOT have any wording to what they cover other than generally stating a listing of "Aggregate Limit of Liability". This is simply read that any quotes received are to be covered because they are under the limit. Why was it stated that "...we have no obligation to pay out entirely for every claim we receive.", yet I was required to go out and get these quotes/estimates on my own, per their need to supposedly and properly "run" their business. Given that, they should agree with what I was able to come up with and in due time.7) This seems like a typo by them, but they did state "By accepting the cash payment of 51,100 made on this claim, the claim has been paid, and closed, in accordance with the policy." I obviously did not get a check for $51,100 but it was for $1,100. This claim should not have been closed because this was not stated between me and the representative I spoke with numerous times. And I do not see anything proper that this all is "in accordance with the policy". One of the main issues, again, is that they can only do "cash payment in lieu of repair/replacement", but it does not suffice. This was discussed numerous times with the representative, yet no final conclusion made with regards to the estimates and actual cost required to repair the furnace.Please read through all these items and please come to a proper negotiation for this claim with the lowest estimate ($3,500) that I was able to personally obtain and send for your "service" that is required to fix the furnace.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
We had 2 contractors come out and look at the water heater. The first one, Mr. Rooter, came out on April 26th. He suggested the tank be replaced and moved to a new location. When we spoke to RWS, we were told that they would cover up to $750 for the tank and labor. The lady on the phone said she felt that he was overcharging. So on April 29th we had the contractor that RWS had chosen, Eaton Plumbing, come out and look at it. They also determined that the tank needed replaced. When Eaton plumbing contacted RWS they said that they would not cover the repair so I called RWS to find out why. I was told they would not cover repair due to a leak during the first 30 days. I called Eaton Plumbing back and told the lady what RWS told me. She said that there wasn't a leak and that there must have been a misunderstanding and she called RWS back. Eaton Plumbing then called me again and said that RWS said that they would cover $800 of the repair. We still felt though that they were charging too much to do the replacement and chose to not have them do the repair. We did however still pay the $75 deductible. After The contractor left I looked through our booklet from RWS again and read where it said under rights of the customer that we "may request cash in leu of repair" and that same day, April 29th I called RWS and told them that I wanted to request the cash. I was told that was fine and I would be sent a check. When I questioned the man on the phone and said "so they are just going to send me a check?", he said yes. That he would submit the claim that day and it could take up to 30 days. I asked him if he knew how much it would be for and he said $800. After not receiving a check in the mail I contacted RWS in June and was told that they had no record of that conversation. How do they not have any record of the multiple phone calls that day? No where in their booklet does it say that in order to request cash that they need an invoice. And there was no alterations to the water heater. Also, I never sent RWS an invoice so I am not sure what they are talking about. This is just further proof of what a dishonest company this is. I am attaching a copy of the invoice we have from Eaton Olumbing that proves that we did pay the $75 deductible and that they did come out on the 29th. I don't understand how RWS can say that they would pay up to $800 towards the replacement and then say that the claim was denied.
Regards,
[redacted]
Because purchasing a home can be daunting, RWS offers a free mold protection warranty to guarantee home inspector findings and give homeowners additional...
protection as circumstances sometimes can change between the home inspection and the move-in date. The warranty works as follows: if an inspection report states there are no mold or moisture issues in the home, and the homeowner moves in and finds visible mold that should have been seen, the warranty would cover its removal and remediation. What the warranty does NOT cover is a homeowner who receives a report that clearly states multiple mold/moisture issues throughout the home, purchases the home regardless, and then tries submit a mold claim under the warranty.
The homeowner, in his complaint, states that “a small area of mold was identified elsewhere” and “trace amounts of mold were identified” as his reasoning as to why RWS should pay for his claim yet his inspection report tells another story: The home inspector listed that a “possible organic substance [i.e. mold] noted” [emp. added] in several locations, further stating his recommendation to “test and remove”. These locations include the (1) garage (visible in multiple areas) and (2) basement / crawlspace (also sighted in multiple areas).
The warranty clearly states “… the following conditions are covered: (1) New visible mold – During the course of your home inspection and in your home inspection report, if there were no visible mold or moisture issues reported, this agreement covers the remediation (removal) of visible mold on surfaces permanently installed in the subject property” [emp. added]. As a result, because the home inspector had already indicated that potential mold growths were visible in multiple areas of the home during the home inspection, this claim is immediately ineligible for coverage. Furthermore, the homeowner is attempting to claim coverage for 'significant mold found in garage', even when his inspection report specifically mentions multiple instances of visible mold found in the garage.
Therefore, Mr. [redacted] was clearly aware that his home had significant , multiple mold and moisture issues prior to purchasing it, yet he bought the home regardless. While this is certainly his choice, he cannot then turn around and claim that RWS ‘would not provide any mold warranty at all’, when his claim is clearly denied due to numerous reasons, some of which are listed above.
Tell us why here...
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. Although, I am not completely in agreement with the response as a whole I willing to omit certain transgression in order to move forward in this business agreement.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], 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 'receipt' that the RWS has was an initial estimate that was submitted to agent Aaron S[redacted] PRIOR to any work being started. Mr. S[redacted] issued an approval of the estimate while the contractor was still at the home so the work could be completed Mr. s[redacted] also approved payment of this claim via email. If this is not the company's policy on approving claims, the agent needs to be trained. However, as this repair was not critical to the functioning of the home, I would have elected to not get the work done if Mr. S[redacted] had followed the company's policy and informed me it was an uncovered repair. Therefore I reject this reply because the 'estimate' was approved prior to work being completed. I have 2 witnesses to this fact.
Regards,
[redacted]
The homeowner, in his complaint to the Revdex.com, makes a series of accusations ranging from “contract breaches” to “failure to pay claims”, all of which are serious accusations that have never occurred with regards to ANY...
of the homeowner’s claims, all of which are broken down below: Claim #1: Garage Door. This was the primary complaint the homeowner described in his Revdex.com submission. It is true that his claim was approved, and it is true that a check was mailed. Unfortunately, the check must have been lost in the mail as we have documentation it was mailed, but, after being made aware of the homeowner’s complaint, no documentation it has been cashed. As a result, a new check was cut immediately and was mailed today. If the homeowner has not received it by mid-next week, please contact the company and ask for the Director of Operations, who has been tasked with personally ensuring the money reaches you expeditiously. Claim #2: Structural. The homeowner was notified that this claim was denied on 05 October 2015. While this claim is prima facie outside the scope of the warranty, made clear by the ‘structural coverage summary’, the homeowner has also stated that this claim was “missed by the inspector”. As the warranty only covers items that were “confirmed to be in good working condition at time of inspection, and excludes all others” [emp. added], anything the inspector missed is not covered by the warranty. However, RWS operates in good faith at all times and, though the homeowner’s own statement denies coverage, RWS has reason to believe the homeowner was mistaken and it was NOT missed by the home inspection. Unfortunately, because the Home Inspector noted the flooring (page 19) as “flooring was wavy or not level in some areas”, a claim to fix a ‘wavy or not level floor’ as this claim states, is still excluded from coverage. Claim #3: Air Conditioner. The air conditioner claim was denied because the warranty clearly states “This contract excludes all appliances, climate control systems, and fixtures over 10 years old”. The homeowner’s air conditioner was made in 1992, making the air conditioner twenty-four (24) years old and so clearly outside the scope of the warranty. Claim #4: Ceiling Fan. This claim was denied because the home inspection clearly noted that the light was not working at the time of inspection. Per the terms of the warranty “This contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others”. As the electrical system was stated as “requiring repair, replacement, and/or evaluation”, the flickering light is not covered under this warranty. To expand, the home inspection report clearly puts the homeowner on notice of lighting issues by stating “one or more overcurrent protection devices… were ‘double-tapped’, where 2 or more wires were clamped in a terminal designed for only one wire. This is a safety hazard since the bolt or screw may tighten securely against one wire, but leave others loose… A qualified electrician should evaluate and repair as necessary.” As the only estimate turned in gives no diagnosis (it only shows the contractor scheduling a time to diagnose) it is the homeowner’s responsibility to turn in the diagnosis so RWS can re-evaluate this claim, if necessary.
I purchased a house in January of 2015, the microwave was not working when I moved in so I was referred to Residential Warranty Services Inc, 90days warranty. I sent the estimate of the repair within the time limit and received a lettter stating that the claim was approved. I wait for almost a month and since I didn't receive a check, I called [redacted] the claim representative. she never returned any of my phone calls. finally, I spoke with customer service asking for a supervisor, she told me it was [redacted]. when she finally got on the phone was extremely rude and when I ask her what the check was taking so long she got upset and told me it was not until the end of March that the check might be issue. when I ask for the Corporate person to file a complaint, she just hung up the phone.
Firstly, please be aware that it is not RWS standard practice to include tracking numbers with our claims payout. We mail hundreds of checks weekly and, due to the costs of tracking, RWS always leaves it up to...
the homeowner to determine if they’d like their payment tracked, which would result in the tracking cost being deducted from their approved amount. Otherwise, we mail the checks and, if notified they have not been received, we do all we can to get the homeowner’s money to them as quickly as possible, at no cost to the homeowner.
The check for this claim was mailed in March but, because the homeowner has not received it and we have no indication it has been cashed, RWS has re-issued the check and re-mailed it. When you receive the check, please call us and let us know the check number so that we can cancel the not-yet-received check. Also, please be aware that you will be receiving a total of $1750.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
The Director of Operations has stated that you reached out to him with regards to scheduling the repairin lieu of your previously-requested buyout. As your claim is still going through the processing stages due to the change and nothing may progress until the contractor's appointment, it appears no response is necessary to this complaint at this time.
However, please be aware that the warranty has clearly disclosed terms and conditions detailing the exact issues you have complained about here: potential multiple deductibles, buyout amounts lower than retail, etc. Please reread the warranty thoroughly so you understand its restrictions, which you agreed to upon your purchase of this warranty.
As has been discussed previously, RWS never told the homeowner her repair would be covered prior to a contractor visiting her home. Logically, RWS will never be able to determine whether the failure is covered under the warranty until a diagnosis (estimate) is received from a qualified Contractor. Therefore, while RWS may, based on a homeowner’s description of the issue, be able to give an idea as to whether it may or may not be covered, there is no guarantee until the documentation has been received.
This claim was properly denied pursuant to the terms of the policy and, as no new information has been offered during the course of these Revdex.com correspondences, the claim will remain denied.