ServiceMaster by Tekton

ServiceMaster by Tekton takes great pride in our customer satisfaction and happinessThank you for your concern in regards to this matterOn 2/20/at 4:p.mour office was notified of a flooding issue at the home of [redacted] at [redacted] **in Crown Point, INDuring this time, our area was experiencing a "catastrophe event" in which several thousand homes and customers were experiencing flooding or water damage to their homesWe contacted [redacted] at 4:p.mon 2/20/and made arrangements to arrive on-site the following dayAt approximately 12:p.mon 2/21/ServiceMaster arrived on-site to assess the damages to the homeIt was found that the basement had experienced flooding and that a structural drying process was needed [redacted] signed our Work Authorization Contract and our crews began the drying process immediatelyThe total time to complete all drying was days, hours and minutesDue to the catastrophe event our area experienced during this process, several of our crews and employees were working double shiftsUnfortunately, in an event such as this, we have to allocate our resources as the become available and cannot always have the same crew on the same job from start to finishIn regards to the use of the customer's tools, our crews did mistakenly use the customer tools that were in the affected areasFurthermore, our crew thought the tools were ours and were left by a previous crewOur crew rounded up the tools and took them with them upon completion of that days serviceWhen it was brought to our attention, we immediately returned all the tools in questionServiceMaster's project manager, [redacted] offered to have someone come out and repair the grass next to the drivewayNicole declined those repairsIn cases of water mitigation or emergency services, the insurance company considers these items cost incurred servicesIn other words, the items are billed after the costs are incurredWe have completed a review of the invoicing and have not discovered anything that was billed in errorAlso, this bill was reviewed by our corporate office for accuracy prior to submitting to the insurance for paymentOnce the review was completed by ServiceMaster corporate, the bill was sent to Auto-Owners InsuranceThe insurance company reviewed the bill and deemed that is was fair and acceptableAt this point, the insurance company asked the insured, [redacted] ***, if issuance of payment was authorized, she agreedIn conclusion, the charges for service rendered by ServiceMaster by Tekton have been reviewed by our office, our corporate office, and the insurance companyAll of those parties, feel that the billing is fair and accurateOur offer to repair the tire marks next to the driveway is still open, however at this time, we feel the request for credit on the bill lacks sufficient documentation and support

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/10/18) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] PM Contact Phone: [redacted] Contact Email: [redacted] @smrbytekton.com ServiceMaster by Tekton (SM) was assigned to a loss experienced by the customer on August 18, SM received loss information and contacted customer at 9:PMSM dispatched crews to the dwelling of the customer which arrived on-site at 10:PMUpon arrival on-site, it was found that the basement of the customer's dwelling had experienced a floodSM personnel asked and received a signed work authorization and authorization to pay from the customer According to industry standards and the service level agreement with the customer's insurance company, SM began to mitigate the loss by removing standing water from the customer's basementIndustry standards and service level agreement requires that the IICRC standard be followed to ensure a dry environment after a residence experiences a water lossAll mitigation performed by SM followed the IICRC standards Mitigation services are a "cost-incurred" serviceCost-Incurred means that billing for the mitigation services is completed after all services are providedThe services are billed on an actual usage and actual performanceUpon completion of the drying process, SM submitted all required documentation to the customer's insurance provider for approvalAfter extensive reviews by both the customer's insurance company and the ServiceMaster corporate review team, the invoice for work completed was approved and paidAt this time the file was marked for closure On approximately September 19, 2016, SM was informed of a customer complaint by the customer's insurance companyThis complaint was the first reported concern from the customerSM replied to customer's concernsOver a period of the next couple of weeks, the customer's insurance company asked for supporting documentation in order to verify billing in specific areas that the customer had expressed concern withThis documentation was provided and reviewed by the customer's insurance companyThe result of that review was that all charges were properly billed for In specific response to the customer's stated concerns with the Revdex.com: "...three areas of the basement that are not carpeted were billed for water extraction, application of anti-microbial agent and content manipulation..." The three areas of the basement that did not have carpeted flooring were affected by the water lossSM extracted water from the hard surface floors in these roomsAdditionally, drying equipment was set in these rooms and monitored for days and anti-microbial spray was usedIn order to complete this work, the contents in those areas and rooms were moved either in the room or elsewhere in the basementContent manipulation was billed on a per hour basis of the actual hours performing the work and then divided by room throughout the affected levelEach room had a minimum amount of content manipulation required in order to mitigate the lossAll of above mentioned items were reviewed by the customer's insurance company and deemed to be proper "...when we expressed concern of using all of our insurance policy limits, [redacted] from ServiceMaster told us not to worry because this was considered clean up and had nothing to do with the repair cost so it would not affect our policy limits to replace the carpet in the basement." At no time during the mitigation services were the policy limits discussedAlso, our water technicians are trained to refer the customer to the estimator for any discussion of the charges for services that are renderedThe estimator creates the billing once the work is completed due to the cost-incurred nature of the mitigation servicesAdditionally, the first submittal of any cost related to the mitigation services rendered was done on August 26, It was unknown to the customer at any point prior to the submission on August 26, what the charges for the services rendered would be or could be Due to the nature of mitigation services, the total charges are not known until the work is completedThe IICRC service standards were followed on every step of the process and therefore all charges submitted were proper and approvedIn summation, the services rendered were performed in accordance with the IICRC standards and the customer's insurance company's guidelinesFinally, the customer disputes charges for work performed in specific areas of the structureWe have supplied the photographs and documentation to support those chargesTherefore, the customer's request for billing adjustment is unfair and unwarrantedSM charges were reviewed and authorized by the a 3rd party that represents the customer's interest, their insurance companyThe conclusion that the insurance company arrived at is that SM acted in good faith, performed the mitigations services as per the IICRC and the service level agreement, and billed appropriately for the mitigation services rendered ServiceMaster by Tekton strives to provide excellent customer service, while ensuring that the work performed meets today's industry standardsPlease let us know how we can be of further assistance in resolving this matter Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/10/26) */ Below is our response to Service Master's Response to our Complaint As to service standards, we cannot commentHowever, as to what work was, or was not, performed in our home we can commentService Master (SM) states that mitigation services are cost-incurred and then goes on to explain what cost-incurred meansThank you for the explanationSM goes on to state that our insurance company, The Hartford, along with a SM corporate review team extensively reviewed the invoice prior to submitting for paymentWe find this statement suspect since it was Shannon, an adjuster from The Hartford, who alerted us to the exorbitant invoice and asked us to review and advise her of any discrepancies As previously stated, we have no issue with the work that was performed on the carpeted areas of our basementThere are three areas in our basement that are not carpeted: a furnace room, a storage room that also has our water softener and sump pump and a bathroom with adjacent storage area underneath the basement stairsWith the exception of the bathroom, the other areas are also used for storage In the furnace room, no content was ever moved or removedOn the evening of the flood, [redacted] set up a table and he and I moved all contents from our hutch to the tableIn the storage area with the water softener and sump pump, our son came to our home on Saturday, August 20, and helped move all contents to the garageThis is two days after the flood and all cleanup and been completed and only monitoring was being doneAs for the bathroom, obviously, no content was moved or removed; however, small items from the carpeted area were moved to the bathroomSince all of the uncarpeted area was full of content, no water extraction was done and therefore no anti-microbial spray could be appliedWe have pictures of the storage room and furnace room full of content, standing water and fans facing outward with the carpet laid on top of the fans On the evening of the flood, with so much going on in our home, we stated that this was going to be costly and take up a great deal of our policy limitsAt no time was an amount or an exact cost or the amount of our policy limits ever discussedObviously, with the process just beginning, exact costs would be unknownHowever, [redacted] from SM did state that the cleanup process had nothing to do with our replacement policy limits SM repeatedly states what service standards are and how their water technicians are trainedTraining does not guarantee that procedures are followed For these reasons, we feel the return of our [redacted] is more than fair and warranted Bogoand [redacted] Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/11/02) */ After consideration of the customer's rebuttal, ServiceMaster by Tekton (SM) provide final clarity in regards to the content manipulation and application of anti-microbial spray Content manipulation is an hourly based charge that is calculated for the entirety of the job, then split amongst the individual rooms throughout the affected spaceTherefore, it is possible that content manipulation may not have occurred in a specific room but it did occur in the overall affected space During the application of the anti-microbial spray, our technician reported that the customer was following him as he was applying the anti-microbial sprayThe customer expressed his concerns to our technician about the environmental hazards of the product in useOur technician explained that the anti-microbial spray is not hazardous and they can remain in their home without worryThe entire affected area from the water loss was treated with the anti-microbial spray Our positon stands that we provided services according to The Hartford guidelines and IICRC standards

ServiceMaster by Tekton takes great pride in our customer satisfaction and happiness. Thank you for your concern in regards to this matter. On 2/20/18 at 4:40 p.m. our office was notified of a flooding issue at the home of [redacted] at [redacted]. in Crown Point, IN. During this...

time, our area was experiencing a "catastrophe event" in which several thousand homes and customers were experiencing flooding or water damage to their homes. We contacted [redacted] at 4:53 p.m. on 2/20/18 and made arrangements to arrive on-site the following day. At approximately 12:20 p.m. on 2/21/18 ServiceMaster arrived on-site to assess the damages to the home. It was found that the basement had experienced flooding and that a structural drying process was needed. [redacted] signed our Work Authorization Contract and our crews began the drying process immediately. The total time to complete all drying was 6 days, 3 hours and 10 minutes. Due to the catastrophe event our area experienced during this process, several of our crews and employees were working double shifts. Unfortunately, in an event such as this, we have to allocate our resources as the become available and cannot always have the same crew on the same job from start to finish. In regards to the use of the customer's tools, our crews did mistakenly use the customer tools that were in the affected areas. Furthermore, our crew thought the tools were ours and were left by a previous crew. Our crew rounded up the tools and took them with them upon completion of that days service. When it was brought to our attention, we immediately returned all the tools in question. ServiceMaster's project manager, [redacted] offered to have someone come out and repair the grass next to the driveway. Nicole declined those repairs. In cases of water mitigation or emergency services, the insurance company considers these items cost incurred services. In other words, the items are billed after the costs are incurred. We have completed a review of the invoicing and have not discovered anything that was billed in error. Also, this bill was reviewed by our corporate office for accuracy prior to submitting to the insurance for payment. Once the review was completed by ServiceMaster corporate, the bill was sent to Auto-Owners Insurance. The insurance company reviewed the bill and deemed that is was fair and acceptable. At this point, the insurance company asked the insured, [redacted], if issuance of payment was authorized, she agreed. In conclusion, the charges for service rendered by ServiceMaster by Tekton have been reviewed by our office, our corporate office, and the insurance company. All 3 of those parties, feel that the billing is fair and accurate. Our offer to repair the tire marks next to the driveway is still open, however at this time, we feel the request for credit on the bill lacks sufficient documentation and support.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/10/18) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted] PM
Contact Phone: [redacted]
Contact Email: [redacted]@smrbytekton.com
ServiceMaster by Tekton (SM) was assigned to a loss experienced by the customer on August 18, 2016. SM received loss information and...

contacted customer at 9:33 PM. SM dispatched crews to the dwelling of the customer which arrived on-site at 10:59 PM. Upon arrival on-site, it was found that the basement of the customer's dwelling had experienced a flood. SM personnel asked and received a signed work authorization and authorization to pay from the customer.
According to industry standards and the service level agreement with the customer's insurance company, SM began to mitigate the loss by removing standing water from the customer's basement. Industry standards and service level agreement requires that the IICRC 500 standard be followed to ensure a dry environment after a residence experiences a water loss. All mitigation performed by SM followed the IICRC 500 standards.
Mitigation services are a "cost-incurred" service. Cost-Incurred means that billing for the mitigation services is completed after all services are provided. The services are billed on an actual usage and actual performance. Upon completion of the drying process, SM submitted all required documentation to the customer's insurance provider for approval. After extensive reviews by both the customer's insurance company and the ServiceMaster corporate review team, the invoice for work completed was approved and paid. At this time the file was marked for closure.
On approximately September 19, 2016, SM was informed of a customer complaint by the customer's insurance company. This complaint was the first reported concern from the customer. SM replied to customer's concerns. Over a period of the next couple of weeks, the customer's insurance company asked for supporting documentation in order to verify billing in specific areas that the customer had expressed concern with. This documentation was provided and reviewed by the customer's insurance company. The result of that review was that all charges were properly billed for.
In specific response to the customer's stated concerns with the Revdex.com:
"...three areas of the basement that are not carpeted were billed for water extraction, application of anti-microbial agent and content manipulation..."
The three areas of the basement that did not have carpeted flooring were affected by the water loss. SM extracted water from the hard surface floors in these rooms. Additionally, drying equipment was set in these rooms and monitored for 3 days and anti-microbial spray was used. In order to complete this work, the contents in those areas and rooms were moved either in the room or elsewhere in the basement. Content manipulation was billed on a per hour basis of the actual hours performing the work and then divided by room throughout the affected level. Each room had a minimum amount of content manipulation required in order to mitigate the loss. All of above mentioned items were reviewed by the customer's insurance company and deemed to be proper.
"...when we expressed concern of using all of our insurance policy limits, [redacted] from ServiceMaster told us not to worry because this was considered clean up and had nothing to do with the repair cost so it would not affect our policy limits to replace the carpet in the basement."
At no time during the mitigation services were the policy limits discussed. Also, our water technicians are trained to refer the customer to the estimator for any discussion of the charges for services that are rendered. The estimator creates the billing once the work is completed due to the cost-incurred nature of the mitigation services. Additionally, the first submittal of any cost related to the mitigation services rendered was done on August 26, 2016. It was unknown to the customer at any point prior to the submission on August 26, 2016 what the charges for the services rendered would be or could be.
Due to the nature of mitigation services, the total charges are not known until the work is completed. The IICRC 500 service standards were followed on every step of the process and therefore all charges submitted were proper and approved. In summation, the services rendered were performed in accordance with the IICRC 500 standards and the customer's insurance company's guidelines. Finally, the customer disputes charges for work performed in specific areas of the structure. We have supplied the photographs and documentation to support those charges. Therefore, the customer's request for billing adjustment is unfair and unwarranted. SM charges were reviewed and authorized by the a 3rd party that represents the customer's interest, their insurance company. The conclusion that the insurance company arrived at is that SM acted in good faith, performed the mitigations services as per the IICRC 500 and the service level agreement, and billed appropriately for the mitigation services rendered.
ServiceMaster by Tekton strives to provide excellent customer service, while ensuring that the work performed meets today's industry standards. Please let us know how we can be of further assistance in resolving this matter.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/10/26) */
Below is our response to Service Master's Response to our Complaint.
As to service standards, we cannot comment. However, as to what work was, or was not, performed in our home we can comment. Service Master (SM) states that mitigation services are cost-incurred and then goes on to explain what cost-incurred means. Thank you for the explanation. SM goes on to state that our insurance company, The Hartford, along with a SM corporate review team extensively reviewed the invoice prior to submitting for payment. We find this statement suspect since it was Shannon, an adjuster from The Hartford, who alerted us to the exorbitant invoice and asked us to review and advise her
of any discrepancies.
As previously stated, we have no issue with the work that was performed on the carpeted areas of our basement. There are three areas in our basement that are not carpeted: a furnace room, a storage room that also has our water softener and sump pump and a bathroom with adjacent storage area underneath the basement stairs. With the exception of the bathroom, the other areas are also used for storage.
In the furnace room, no content was ever moved or removed. On the evening of the flood, [redacted] set up a table and he and I moved all contents from our hutch to the table. In the storage area with the water softener and sump pump, our son came to our home on Saturday, August 20, and helped move all contents to the garage. This is two days after the flood and all cleanup and been completed and only monitoring was being done. As for the bathroom, obviously, no content was moved or removed; however, small items from the carpeted area were moved to the bathroom. Since all of the uncarpeted area was full of content, no water extraction was done and therefore no anti-microbial spray could be applied. We have pictures of the storage room and furnace room full of content, standing water and fans facing outward with the carpet laid on top of the fans.
On the evening of the flood, with so much going on in our home, we stated that this was going to be costly and take up a great deal of our policy limits. At no time was an amount or an exact cost or the amount of our policy limits ever discussed. Obviously, with the process just beginning, exact costs would be unknown. However, [redacted] from SM did state that the cleanup process had nothing to do with our replacement policy limits.
SM repeatedly states what service standards are and how their water technicians are trained. Training does not guarantee that procedures are followed.
For these reasons, we feel the return of our [redacted] is more than fair and warranted.
Bogoja and [redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/11/02) */
After consideration of the customer's rebuttal, ServiceMaster by Tekton (SM) provide final clarity in regards to the content manipulation and application of anti-microbial spray.
Content manipulation is an hourly based charge that is calculated for the entirety of the job, then split amongst the individual rooms throughout the affected space. Therefore, it is possible that content manipulation may not have occurred in a specific room but it did occur in the overall affected space.
During the application of the anti-microbial spray, our technician reported that the customer was following him as he was applying the anti-microbial spray. The customer expressed his concerns to our technician about the environmental hazards of the product in use. Our technician explained that the anti-microbial spray is not hazardous and they can remain in their home without worry. The entire affected area from the water loss was treated with the anti-microbial spray.
Our positon stands that we provided services according to The Hartford guidelines and IICRC 500 standards.