Spice Restaurant

RWS has up to business days to issue a check, which the homeowner was informed of, at the time of being notified of the refundDespite this, RWS went above and beyond our obligations by expediting the check - it was mailed last week (12-06-2016) to the address contained on the filePlease call into RWS if it has not yet been received and we will re-issue the check, if necessary

The homeowner has stated that the issue began approximately one month ago, and blames RWS for the delay in handling his claimHowever, the homeowner did not file his claim with RWS until December 2017, approximately weeks after first noticing the leak which, while we sympathize with his mentioning he was waiting for a call back from a specific employee, his policy states, throughout its terms and conditions, the number to call to file a claim, which can be taken and processed by any one of our numerous customer service representativesWithin days of his claim being filed, a contractor was dispatched but, when the homeowner called in the next day upset he had not been reached out to yet by that contractor, our contractor network immediately dispatched a second contractor, with the hopes of getting someone out to the homeowner faster, with the homeowner being made aware of the sameAt this point, it’s between the homeowner and the contractor to schedule a time for the contractor to come out; we find our customers prefer it this way as it allows them to get the contractor out quicker, more conveniently, and at a time that best suits their schedulesUntil we hear back from the contractor or the homeowner with details pertaining to the repair, there is nothing we can do with regards to this claim

[redacted] , thank you for notifying us of the issueI see from our records that you have already been contacted by our the General Manager here at Residential Warranty Services, regarding the structural issues which you submitted to usHe himself, has in turn, had conversations with your home inspector, in order to clarify some minor points noted within the report, which needed addressing in order to ensure that you received the most complete coverage available to youAfter so doing, he immediately reviewed your now completed submission, and as I understand, called your personally and took you through the determinationThe issue was resolved immediately upon receiving full clarification from the home inspector and as a result, your submitted issue was not only covered, but covered to the fullest extent of the day policy, that being $I hope that we have shown you, through our quick and decisive actions, that we really do care about our customers and go above and beyond in order to correct any misunderstandings which may occur when dealing with complex submissions through multiple partiesI would hope that the next time you are in contact with the Revdex.com, that it will be to provide us with the positive review we know we deserveYou will be receiving a check for the full amount shortly and I offer you my thanks for allowing us to fully cover the issue at handThank you

Thank you for your complaintAs stated in response to your Revdex.com review yesterday: "Please note that your policy states 'all claims must be received within days of the inspection or within days of closing, whichever comes later'Your policy was valid from October thru January and you filed the above claim on March 2017, far after your policy's expiration dateYou were told this months ago both via telephone and via email, making this review so surprising to seeIf you have documentation that indicates the wrong closing date or inspection date was reported to us, please forward".No documentation has been received since the above response was posted yesterdayIn addition, in response to the homeowner's claim that 'nothing in the warranty states validity being days after date of closing' and that the problem was identified within days of the inspection report, I urge them to re-read their one page policy as the above quote was pulled directly therefromPlease reread the policy in its entirety and provide us the above requested documentation, if applicableOtherwise, without any documentation indicating the closing date and/or inspection date previously mentioned (and repeated above) were incorrect, there is nothing more to be done

I was just informed that our Director recently contacted you to schedule a second opinion for your dishwasher repair, which you mentioned in this response, yet you refused him and told him you still wanted the buyout but you wanted more than you were eligible for under the warrantyPlease note that the deductibles aren’t per unit, the deductible is per failed partTherefore, if you have two parts fail in one unit, you owe two deductiblesDue to your dissatisfaction, even though RWS has no obligation to do so, the Director has waived one of your deductiblesTherefore, you will receive a buyout of $provided you remove this complaint as RWS has been actively working with you to resolve this issue, beyond our obligation to do so, and you have responded by saying one thing to our Director and the exact opposite hereTherefore, if you do not choose the buyout, you can agree to the second opinion, which you turned down not even an hour ago, and we can continue with the repairPlease reach out to the Director of Operations to continue processing your claimAt this point, both the buyout option and the repair option have been temporarily suspended until you let us know exactly which option you want

Thank you for your July letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc("RWS")As stated in our previous response, water heaters are explicitly excluded from coverage within the first thirty (30) days of the warranty's commencementThis limitation is an industry standard to protect home warranty companies from claims on likely pre-existing issues and is clearly stated in the warranty terms and conditions under #of the Limits of LiabilityIn response to the Customer's confusion about the modification referenced earlier, it is explicitly written on the Contractor's invoice, wherein the Contractor states that the water heater had been so modified that the owner of the Contractor's company had to be called out to inspect the unitIt further states that the water heater was determined to have been so modified that it was made dangerous to the point of not being safe for operation with immediate replacement given as the only recommendationThis again puts the Customer's claim outside the scope of the warranty and required RWS to deny the claim under #of the Limits of LiabilityRWS followed the verbiage of our carefully constructed warranty and, though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditionsRWS remains unable to grant approval for this particular claimSincerely, Alix [redacted] EsqCorporate Counsel — Residential Warranty Services, IncPro Med Lane, Cannel, IN (317) 573-(tel.) (317) 218-(fax) [redacted] .com

The homeowner’s submitted invoice included a trip fee, a labor charge for hours’ work, and a parts chargeRWS covered the entirety of the trip fee, the entirety of the parts charge, had to adjust the amount paid on labor to a national standard for the listed hours, and included, without prompting from the homeowner and despite the contractor not itemizing the invoice, as required by the policy, a drywall access fee reimbursement as covered in the policyOnce the service call fees were deducted (the policy states “a service call fee applies to each mechanical breakdown, for each distinct malfunctionAt times, multiple malfunctions may be discovered in the same componentA service call fee would apply for each repair or the actual cost to repair, whichever is less”), the homeowner was written a check for $259.00, which they have confirmed receivingBased on the documentation the homeowner submitted, this is the correct amount and, while we do empathize that they were hoping for a higher buyout, RWS must depend on the documents receivedHowever, after speaking with the homeowner, it appears the contractor may have miswritten the number of hours workedIf this is the case, please submit an accurate invoice and we will be happy to review and send another check, if applicablePlease note, if the hours are the same as discussed previously with RWS’s Director of Operations, the homeowner will receive a total buyout that is higher than the amount they have said they would accept

The homeowner submitted this claim on August As stated in her Revdex.com complaint, there was no “failure”, the claim was for a voluntary inspection and tune-up, requested by the homeowner, that resulted in various “recommended repairs” by the contractorThe homeowner admits this by calling in a claim for an “inspection” and the contractor supports this by stating, as the cause of their visit “tune-up” going further as to state “no issues reported”However, the homeowner needs to be aware that her policy doesn’t cover “recommended repairs” for tune-ups, rather it covers failures that have already occurred – more specifically, a claim is “any time a current, covered failure, is reported to RWRS by the Contract Holder”Furthermore, while the contractor’s invoice indicated recommended repairs, it only lists potential failures – “indoor coil icing up – possible low refrigerant” and “blower capacitor weak”While neither are failures, RWS went above and beyond their obligations by covering the replacement of the capacitor and paying for a refill of FreonHowever, the other two recommended repairs were not covered because there was no indication that there was any failureAs a result, due to there being no actual failures, RWS covered the Freon, capacitor, and labor to install both, minus the homeowner’s service call fee, for a total of $320.00, which was received by the homeownerIt is vital that the homeowner note, in their policy, that “RWS reserves the right to make a cash payment to a Contract Holder in lieu of repair/replacement for the defective part(s)” and that “cash payment will reflect RWS negotiated cost for service and may be less than retail”It should also be noted that the August claim lists no failures or issues, and neither does the corresponding contractor’s invoiceYet, in her Revdex.com complaint, the homeowner is stating that her entire system failed not even 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 completelyHad 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 unitInstead, she took a system that had no failures 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”As a result, RWS can only base their decision on the information provided in accordance with the homeowner’s policy, namely the tuclaim and corresponding invoiceAs the homeowner was told each time she called into RWS that, due to there being no actual failures related to her claim, RWS already went above and beyond her policy by covering the Freon refill and capacitor replacementUnless the homeowner has additional information that would change the circumstances or information already received, the homeowner is due no additional money and this claim remains closed

All of the homeowner’s raised questions have been addressed, including by quoting the policy itself, in RWS’s previous responseWe here at RWS urge Mr [redacted] to review his policy, and our previous answer, thoroughly However, to address the new allegations Mr [redacted] has seen fit to raise in his second response, RWS states as follows: The distance of a contractor has NO BEARING on the homeownerThe contractor is paid only the applicable deductible(s) from the homeowner unless, as stated earlier, the customer requests expedited service, as occurred in this instanceAll costs above the deductible and expedited service fees are paid by RWS, making distance irrelevantFurthermore, the policy clearly states that a homeowner has the freedom to “call any contractor you would like”, giving Mr [redacted] a second option with regards to contractors, one he chose not to exercise RWS has nothing to do with any scheduling between the service contractor and the homeowner unless the homeowner specifically asks us to interveneRWS contacts a contractor if the homeowner requests an RWS networked contractor, and puts them in contact with the homeowner, for them to decide when to schedule the appointmentOtherwise, the homeowner reaches out to a contractor of their choice and provides RWS with an estimate prior to any work being done The invoice clearly states that “7lbs of R-22” was added to the upstairs unit, along with “3lbs R-22” to the downstairs unitThere is a charge for R-clearly listed at the bottom of the page – RWS urges Mr [redacted] to review the invoice thoroughly for the clearly listed items No RWS customer service representative has access to the interior of a homeowner’s home; this is clearly a miscommunication or misunderstanding as no one at RWS would ever indicate there was ‘video proof’ inside a homeowner’s home when no one from RWS has ever visited that home As stated earlier, Mr***’s policy is still marked for cancellation without refund due to his refusal to pay the clearly delineated fees associated with this warrantyOnce RWS receives confirmation of the payment, we will be able to work with Mr [redacted] with regards to his air conditionersOtherwise, his policy will be canceled in accordance with the cancellation provision included therein -- Alix Lei V [redacted] , Esq

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 Okay so let me get this straight!!! When you received the estimates they were good enough to approve us for a ridiculous amount of $and we followed all that was requested of usNO one ever said those estimates were not good enoughAnd we WERE approved and covered on those damagesMaybe you should go back and re read the emails that you company sent, you are back tracking and trying not to pay the claim nowThen when we filed a complaint, you froze the payment and have been talking in circles and refusing to pay a reasonable amountNOW that we say just pay the original $that YOUR COMPANY agreed to payNOW those estimates are not good enough IF You want a breakdown of each estimate then YOU need to call those companies, YOU have all their informationApparently you don't like the way that companies run their businessesThese companies did give you estimates and are happy to answer any question that you may have in regards to the estimatesSo I guess its funny when it's time to pay the original amount of $ you don't want to,there was never an issue on that amountYour reviews speak volume on how you run your company Regards, ***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Greetings Revdex.comIn reviewing the reply by RWS, I was off by one yearI returned to RWS in when I closed on second home *If not, why? Their reply is the first time that I've been contacted by them! In any form, either by phone, e-mail, or U.SMail! *Has the company met the agreement they outlined in their response? No, First and foremost, since my home warranty was included with my closing, and paid for by the seller in [see line #1303]! Secondly, I would not make only two payments, then stop in middle of the policy! I have looked at my records, and see where they make that claimAlbeit, I sent in a check on July 24, for my renewal in the amount of $93.84/ck# ***I never got the monthly invoices as I had before in the pastAnd I'm not on automatic bill pay! I'm taken aback that, that would be their stance! [See attached docs, scroll down to bottom, due to white paper covering other info].As a former U.SNavy Boot Camp Instructor, I keep everything! I've gone back and reviewed my past RWS policies from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, & And they all have monthly invoices that followed! And even more insulting, their reply states that I was hard to contact, is invalid! In that I made a service call on May 4, for my garage doorMy contact information has not changed! And I was not sent any notice, that my policy was nearing expiration, or had expired! Or that they were considering sending my account to collections! So one would need my contact information to send it to collections! Furthermore, they have not addressed the fact that not for me contacting the Revdex.comRWS had not to date, replied to any of my recent calls! To cure this matter! So, how is that I have all of my past RWS policies, and nothing from them, for my renewal? So for RWS to state, "that the only resolve to this ordeal, is for me to pay the 2016-renewal" is asinine! With no mention from RWS that its due to their oversight! I followed all of the procedures that they have in place! I had a policy issue with RWS in the past, and stayed a customerIncluding sending them referrals! In closing, for RWS to not bear the onus, for their oversight! Is not very professional! Nor good for business! I await your follow-up Regards, ** ***

As stated earlier:We here at RWS sincerely apologize that the homeowner has felt slighted by our response – it was never our intention to question her claims; simply to point out where some confusion may have lain as the failed unit was never mentioned and no documents pertaining to a failed unit were ever submitted to RWS, despite the multiple communicationsAs the majority of the information contained in the homeowner’s response has already been addressed in prior communications, we have only addressed, in this response, the new item included and clarified an accusation leveled by the homeowner which, by her response, was misunderstood initially:Firstly, the phone records provided match up with the RWS records, as discussed and referenced in previous responsesSecondly, RWS's final approval process takes up to business days (which excludes holidays and weekends), putting the homeowner's claim's finalization date as OctoberTrue to form, on October, the approval process was being finalized when it was realized that the homeowner had no actual failure or even issue, that the repairs were ‘recommended’, that there was no documentation showing the homeowner ever had the ‘recommended repairs completed’, no proof that the ‘recommended repairs’ were necessary, multiple ‘recommended repairs’ (i.eoptions) that purported to fix the same issue, and that the contractor stated there were no failures or even issues! At this point, the amount was adjusted accordingly and the buyout check mailed out immediately, per company policy.RWS has addressed all of the questions and concerns raised with regards to this claim, all backed by our policy and nothing in this most recent correspondence changes any of the facts upon which the claim decision was made - if this changes, the homeowner is urged to reach out to RWS so that we can re-audit the claim, if appropriateThank you

Thank you for your review – it appears there were some serious miscommunications with regards to your claim and for that RWS sincerely apologizesWith regards to your complaints: The reason for denial has remained the same throughout your claim – while the estimate you submitted does state ‘visible mold’ it is meant in reference to ‘plenum box, coil, blower, and ducts’Most of those components listed are NOT visible to a home inspector or layman as they are internal partsThe mold was “visible” to the contractor but he had to have removed some item in order for them to be visible, which he confirmed when our claims representatives spoke with him after receiving the initial invoiceObviously, this means that it was NOT visible to the home inspectorHowever, as you have been told, based on the information you later submitted, the claim was reviewed and is going through the approval process as we speak Your being put on hold for minutes is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and we sincerely apologizeWe are currently looking into the matter to determine who put you on hold after the department had closed for the evening and they will be dealt with accordingly, especially as Victor (referenced in your complaint) was not made aware of your desire to speak with him, which is why you did not receive a callback the next dayThanks to your critique, measures have been put in place to ensure this never happens againThank you for bringing it to our attention

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 The real invoice is attachedThis is the one the service guy gave meNotice; only charge is deductibleAlso notice, recommendationsI also have the text msg from the service guy saying he only used little freon just to start the AC Regards, [redacted] ***

This claim was called in February and the homeowner was given permission to use her own contractor, so long as they submitted a diagnosis and estimate to us before any work was completedThe next day we were contacted by a panicked homeowner, who told us that her contractor (to whom she had already paid a 50% deposit for the entirety of his proposed estimate) had damaged her home and, while she couldn’t work with him, he wouldn’t return her moneyOn her behalf, our Director of Operations went above and beyond his required job duties and called this contractor, with whom we had no previous relationship, and convinced him to return ALL of her moneyAt that point, due to the homeowner wanting to work with another contractor, a new diagnosis and estimate was required, which were submitted in late MarchAt that point, based on the new estimate, it was clear that the damage was not covered under her policy and so it was deniedWe here at RWS are honestly surprised to hear the allegations put forth by this homeowner, especially after we intervened and saved her over a thousand dollars due to her own contractor’s mistake because at no point has anyone ever been told they would automatically receive the maximum amount under a claim or that we have no approval processIt seems disingenuous to assert an honest belief that a home warranty company, once contacted with a claim, would automatically issue the maximum amount of coverage with the homeowner simply having to turn in an invoice after the fact

Revdex.com: I was not made aware in the multiple times I called that the check had been mailed once already That would have been nice to know 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 Regards, [redacted]

I disagree with RWS’s responses because I was given different reasons for claims not being covered or closed by their representatives than in their responses The complaints were handled by RWS representatives in an improper manner as discussed in my original complaint Floor Joist: I was told by the RWS representative that the invoice I submitted was sufficient I did not need a cause of failure on the invoice because the floor joists were sagging and a support system was going to be installed They agreed the cause of failure was common sense I was told the claim was approved for $but only received $ The warranty covered up to $2,In addition, RWS did not inform me they were not sending the full amount and just sent me a check that was short $Therefore, RWS still owes me $Please see the attached invoice from the contractor with the cause of failure stated explicitly Plumbing: A RWS representative told me this claim was closed when I called asking about the floor joists above Fixing the floor joists were the top priority Now that I know this claim is open, I will work on getting the documentation to RWS for review Electrical: I disagree with this explanation I spoke with representatives regarding it and they said everything electrical was denied based on the breaker boxI also received this email: Dear ***, I am writing you today in regards to the electrical claim you submitted on 10/16/Your claim has been deniedThe Inspection report notes it on page & Your inspection report states; Wiring splices should be in junction boxesLocation: above air handler in atticWiring exposed to damage should be repaired as neededLocation: power ventilator" (pg 16) and " Receptacle(s) that did not function should have circuit checked and replaced as neededLocation: living room front wall left receptical." (pg 17) As it states in our policy; --This contract only covers those items that were confirmed to be in good working order at time of inspection and excludes all others, regardless of their condition at the time of inspection or if they were repaired.-- If you have any questions regarding our claim decision or need anything further please reply to this emailSincerely, Amity B [redacted] Claims Representative Residential Warranty Services (800) 544-ab [redacted] @rwswarranty.com

The homeowner’s termite protection plan covers “new infestations” after the home inspectionThe homeowner filed a claim stating they witnessed termites but, in the estimate they submitted, the contractor only confirmed the home inspection’s previously disclosed findings and there was no indication in the bid that new termite activity had been foundAs a result, the damage appeared to be pre-existing, which precluded coverage and so the claim was denied.After the denial was mailed, the homeowner’s home inspector called in and explained to the Director of the Warranty Department that the homeowner had seen new termite activity and he argued their caseThe Director exercised his discretion and had the homeowners’ claim representative call the contractor directly to find out what was going onThe contractor stated that he was unaware the bid was going to a warranty company and so he wrote the bid for the homeowners, leaving out the new infestation signs and the price breakdown requiredAfter speaking with him, it was apparent that the homeowner’s claim was coveredThe contractor told RWS that they would charge $to chemically treat the infected areas, which is what the homeowner's plan covers, and the Director approved the amountAs a result, a check in the amount of $($– the homeowner’s $deductible) was submitted earlier this month and mailed July 2016.If the homeowner would like to decline the buyout check, RWS is happy to re-review the claim a second time (with no guarantee that the review will result in a higher buyout amount)To re-open their claim, the homeowner simply needs to VOID and return the buyout check and provide an estimate for chemical treatment of the infected areas only, which is the treatment covered by their warranty, and the claim will be re-opened immediately

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 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.]I am fine to have the machine fixed if you're going to pay for itAll I am asking is to be made wholeIf it is repaired, I want it to workIf it is replaced, I want a fair value to replace it with a comparable dishwasherI have repeated said I will settle for $The facts from the beginning are this: I contacted RWS when my dishwasher brokeThis is the first time I've used a home warrantyI spoke with Katie, and she told me it would be best to contact my own repair service for the estimateI reached out to a local appliance repair companyThey came out and gave me an estimate of $1,When I sent you this estimate, I noted that it would save you money just to replace it and pasted a link to a comparable machine valued around $You offered me $You said that because there were two broken components, I owed two deductibles even though it was for one service callWe have since gone back-and-forthYou suggested I called a repair man of your choiceI have done thatHe suggested he can fix it for less than the original estimate (He has not seen the machine yet)I am happy to have him do that if you are going to pay for itOtherwise, I would accept $to replace the dishwasherA new dishwasher is going to cost me slightly over $If we take $and minus the deductible, it is $I am asking for $If you believe it will save you money to repair the machine, I can give your mechanic a call back and set up a time for him to see the machine Regards, [redacted] ***