Spice Restaurant

This homeowner turned in a claim for a broken dishwasher but, when the diagnosis was submitted, he stated that he would prefer to purchase a new dishwasher instead of repairing his old one. This resulted in a ‘buyout’ being submitted for processing. Per the homeowner’s warranty “should the contract...

holder wish to replace a repairable item, at their election, the Contract Holder may choose to receive a cash payment or allowance in lieu of repair. In such cases, the cash payment shall be made in accordance with RWS negotiated service and repair rates and may be less than retail.” However, when the homeowner was told the buyout amount, he changed his mind and chose to instead have the dishwasher repaired – this culminated in a conversation with the Director of Operations yesterday, wherein the Director stated RWS was more than willing to accommodate this changed request but would need a few days to gather the additional information needed for a repair that wasn’t needed for a buyout. The homeowner acknowledged his understanding and they agreed to speak again early next week. Obviously, this homeowner decided to instead file a complaint this morning, less than a day after speaking with the Director. As a result, the homeowner’s repair request is still being processed.Furthermore, the homeowner needs to be aware that RWS is not responsible for replacing an entire unit when only a few parts therein have failed – RWS is only responsible for replacing or repairing the failed parts and, as only 2 components in the homeowner’s dishwasher failed, RWS can either repair or replace those components, or issue a buyout. Therefore, due to some confusion as to what exactly this homeowner wants; he had previously acknowledged the repair option details would be finalized Monday but then filed this complaint immediately after asking for immediate resolution. Therefore, RWS has re-issued the homeowner’s requested buyout for processing and stopped the repair option processing in order to quickly handle this homeowner’s claim and not waste any of his time. If the homeowner does still want the repair option, RWS asks that he (1) removes this complaint as it is premature and (2) contact the Director of Operations to inform him that the homeowner does, in fact, still want the repair option and will grant RWS the few extra days processing, as originally agreed upon.

The homeowner states in his complaint that the home inspector noted the deficiencies with the metal flashing but repair work on the same was completed prior to the home’s purchase. Those deficiencies have re-occurred and the homeowner seeks coverage. However, the homeowner’s 90-day policy states...

“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 whether they were repaired” Therefore, because the homeowner’s roof issue was noted in his inspection report, it does not matter that it was later fixed; it is not covered. Furthermore, the inspection report received by RWS includes the deficiencies and states that the roller asphalt roof coverings are “near the end of their useful life” and that “buckling and wrinkling observed in numerous areas” along with “lifting laps observed in numerous areas”.  Additionally, “flashing is missing/damaged and can allow water to enter the roof structure. Recommend repair/replace”. As a side note, the homeowner, in his Revdex.com complaint admitted that the deficiencies were in his inspection report but later claimed that his inspection report states these deficiencies were excluded and the issue was noted to be in “good working condition”. RWS is concerned that you are insinuating you have two separate home inspection reports, from the same company, with one that includes deficiencies and another that excludes them completely. Regardless, due to the inclusion in the inspection report, this claim was denied. Furthermore, the 90-day email is listed at the bottom of the policy and is the quickest way to reach a customer service representative. While our representatives may use their individual accounts to contact a customer who is unavailable or hard to reach via telephone, it is only utilized for information requests to continue processing claims for the convenience of our customers and out of consideration for their schedules. However, by only contacting a single representative and not calling in to RWS or emailing the 90-day email address included on every policy, a customer can run the risk of a particular representative being unavailable and the company being unaware of the missed communications. While we do apologize for this inconvenience, the email address to contact regarding claims is listed on the policy itself and this claim was properly denied due to the roof issues listed specifically in the inspection report.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to me. I made 2 payments of $75 for the sink issue both in May 2016 to  [redacted] and [redacted], and one for the heater issue January 2017.  Attached is a statement showing the May 2016 payments
Regards,
[redacted]

The homeowner needs to be aware that Residential Warranty Services, Inc. (“RWS”) is NOT their home inspection company – we are a third party warranty provider. This is vital because the homeowner mistakenly stated “I had home inspection done by their company”. Secondly, RWS has been actively...

working with the homeowner on this claim – his initial invoice, $7300 for a new system, was extremely unusual based on the circumstances surrounding this claim. As a result, RWS initially approved the obviously failed part, the compressor, and has been actively working with the homeowner to dispatch another contractor for a second opinion with regards to the other items listed, in order to move this claim forward. It should be noted that RWS also offered to cover hotel expenses pursuant to the policy, for any delay this second opinion causes, all of which was communicated to the homeowner last week.The new contractor conducted the second opinion today and, once RWS receives the 2nd opinion, we will be able to process the claim and determine the correct course of action.

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.
To start with RWS never indicated to me that the first estimate I provided to them was not sufficient as policy does state that if it was necessary they may request a second estimate. They never did and when they finally did give me an initial offer of 300, then 600 and I questioned and said it was ubsurd their company DID try to tell me it was do to caps. I did provide another clear estimate to the company that had proper breakdowns of labor/parts THE NEXT DAY after I was made aware that the offer being given was based on insufficient prior estimate. I was NEVER asked to provide an additional estimate although I had received 2 estimates when the original problem occurred 9/27/16 but was told first that there was a labor cap on my policy.  I argued with this company on the amount that was to be paid out for the last 4 months on a 3 month warranty. So saying that they will re-evaluate if I resubmit within the time frame of my warranty when they know very well they still had not approved ANY amount on my claim until almost 3.5 months AFTER my line failure and over 120 days after my 90 day policy the bottom line for why I am filing this complaint is bc the company failed to provide what the contract clearly states it covers. First tried to offer 300, 600, 1200 but then would not budge and kept telling me lies as to why they would not cover the rest. Also my contractor DID tell me they had been in contact with him so again this company is flat out lying not only to me but to the Revdex.com. Business practices here are disgusting! And they are scamming, lying, and ripping off A LOT of innocent people! Something NEEDS TO BE DONE! I CAN provide email documentation to back up every word of what I said. Bottom line.... this resolution is INADEQUATE due to the fact that my policy expired Long previous to even making contact with the director who made it clear they would NOT be honoring the contract To cover the amounts I paid out in labor and parts. 
Regards,
[redacted]

It is not RWS’s duty to gather the proper documentation – per the policy, it is the homeowner’s responsibility and the requirements are clearly delineated on the policy itself. Additionally, while the homeowner may state that he is “not concerned with being reimbursed for the ground rods”, he submitted an invoice for the same. Regardless, none of this matters as the claim was rightfully denied for the multiple reasons stated in RWS’s previous response. As pointed out in RWS’s last response, the homeowner’s claim was precluded for multiple reasons. RWS stands behind the reasons for the denial, and respectfully requests the homeowner to read the original response thoroughly, which addresses all of the points made in the homeowner’s most recent response. Finally, the homeowner needs to be aware that RWS does not represent the home inspector (additionally, it is unclear what the homeowner meant by that statement). RWS is a third-party company that offers a warranty with regards to the home inspection report findings – RWS is not the home inspection company and has no control over them or their home inspections.

Thank you for your 10 June 2015 letter to Residential Warranty Services, Inc. ("RWS"). It appears there was some confusion with regards to our claims process, which led the Customer's wife to a perception that her claim was approved for a certain amount before all of the information necessary to...

grant approval or denial had been submitted. As the Customer's wife acknowledges that RWS was not given the invoice until 08 June 2015 (Exhibit A), no decision had been made prior. When, the invoice was received, last week, it was immediately evident that the claim was outside the scope of the Warranty for the reasons set out below and so it was denied forthwith: I.  The Customer's water heater bad been altered, thereby putting it outside the Warranty's scope. The Contractor's invoice states that they had to call the owner of the company out to the Customer's home because "there were alterations to the tank" and that, "due to these alterations to the tank, it is not safe for operation". (Exhibit C). Item #11 on the Warranty's limits of liability clearly states that "Repairs necessary as a result of any act of nature, misuse, abuse, lack of maintenance... or any other outside influence, natural or unnatural, are not covered under this policy" [emp. added] (Exhibit B). Having a water heater that had been so altered that it was completely unsafe to use clearly is the result of an outside influence and therefore outside the scope of the Warranty. II. Water heaters are not covered within the first thirty (30) days of a Warranty's commencement date. A 30 day waiting period for some types of coverage is standard practice within the home warranty community as it protects from individuals who may purchase a home warranty and immediately file a claim on a pre-existing issue. Therefore, as certain types of damages are generally pre-existing if filed within the first month of having the warranty, they're usually excluded. For RWS, stated as #1 in the Limits of Liability, any "units I items rusted beyond repair before the end of the 30 day period after policy commencement or during listing coverage are not covered. This includes ... water heaters." [emp. added]. (Exhibit B) The Customer received his warranty on 17 April 2015 and filed the claim at hand approximately one week later. Unfortunately, this puts the water heater claim within the first thirty days of the policy's commencement and therefore outside the scope of the warranty. RWS is unable to approve or deny a claim without the necessary documentation. Any allegation that approval (or denial) was received prior to this submittal is prima facie impossible and would have had to come from a third party. The Customer's wife is determined that the above claim had been approved at some point in May, for the policy maximum, without supplying RWS with the invoice, something that is impossible based on the way our system is run. RWS records clearly show that no invoice was received before 08 June 2015, which means no approval or denial was granted and, because no approval or denial was granted, no further steps were taken to determine the value of the applicable cash payout, were that to be the option they preferred (as she indicated it was, in her complaint). All records show the Customer contacted RWS only twice — once on 24 April to discuss his claim, which he described as well as indicating that the united needed to be relocated and upgraded. The RWS representative informed the Client that relocations and upgrades are not available for coverage but that the Customer's described water heater issue could be approved for up to $800, the issue maximum, as clearly slated in the policy (Exhibit B). However, this indication was, in no way, actual approval being given for the maximum amount based on the Customer's unprofessional description of the issue, over the phone, which it seems to have been interpreted as. The second contact to RWS was in June, inquiring about a check, wherein he was informed that RWS had never received the invoice and so was unable to make a decision regarding approval or denial. However, there are no records of any contact existing between the Customer and RWS excepting those two instances, which means the Customer's wife could not have called us and received approval. In addition, once approval is granted and a cash payment option is requested, there is a separate procedure RWS must go through to ensure the proper payment is provided, which the Customer has not referenced nor do our records show occurred. RWS procedures logically require a Contractor invoice regarding the issue to ensure the exact nature and cause of the issue, as well, as to give RWS the necessary documentation to prove the issue falls within the scope of the Warranty. Without this invoice, no approval or denial is given, period and, subsequently, no approval, amount is able to be determined. Thus, though the Customer's wife is certain she was given approval, all we here at RWS know is that whatever approval she may have been given did not come from us. IV. Conclusion Though we deeply sympathize with the Customer's situation, proper RWS protocols were followed at all times, as were policy terms and conditions, and RWS is unable to change our contract to grant the Customer's wife approval We here at RWS are more than willing to work with the Customer's wife to determine what happened to make her believe the claim had been approved, but we do know that we never gave approval for the claim, never approved a particular amount for the claim, and so cannot be expected to pay out on a claim so clearly outside the scope of our Warranty. Sincerely, Alix [redacted] Esq. Corporate Counsel Residential Warranty Services, Inc, 698 Pro Med Lane, Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 573-2088 (tel.) (317) 218-0315 (fax) [redacted] 1 mer.com

This homeowner submitted her all of her claims in June and was notified of every denial and approval as soon as it was available based on the timeliness of the information she provided us. RWS has ample documentation of her receipt of these notifications as she was in communication with our claims...

representatives consistently through these processes – for her to claim otherwise is concerning but, in order to ensure complete customer satisfaction, here is a breakdown of the homeowner's claims: 1.       AC – Approved. Approval for $500.00 was sent to the homeowner on 12 September 2016 and a check will be issued within 45 days. 2.       Stove – Denied. The  claim was denied, and homeowner sent notice of the same, on 29 July 2016. While RWS attempted to re-open the claim after receiving this Revdex.com complaint, simply to re-process the claim to ensure complete customer satisfaction, due to the AC approval below this homeowner has reached the maximum mechanical coverage under the policy and so this claim is unable to be re-opened as it would be denied regardless. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 3.       Electrical – Denied. Denial was mailed 09 September due to the homeowner already reaching the mechanical aggregate limit on the 90-day policy. All mechanical coverage is limited to those items within the home’s foundation, and limited to an aggregate maximum of $500.00 4.       Termite – The 90 Day policy itself offers no termite coverage and the Inspector elected not to provide our special Termite Protection Plan add-on. As a result, the homeowner has no termite coverage, resulting in an immediate denial of their termite claim. This service contract covers only those items specifically listed and excludes all others. If the homeowner has any further questions, they may reach out directly to the Company Director, Lane C[redacted], and he will look into any further concerns they may have.

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 the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

While it is always the homeowners’ responsibility to provide RWS with information pertaining to their claim, especially if from a contractor, the homeowner is correct that he is welcome to not submit any of the documentation requested. However, RWS has stated that the documentation is necessary if the homeowner wishes RWS to re-open and review his claim; without the additional information RWS must rely on the original documentation provided, for which the claim has already been processed and decided on – for more information, please see our original response.

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 $112 was for the air duct cleaning. NOT the buyout. This was suppose to be put in as a separate claim number but the person I originally worked with, Tamika, did not do this correctly and just put it in as one claim.  This is where the confusion has been. Dawn said she understood it and that I will be getting $500 and told me it was suppose to be 2 separate claims. In addition, I was originally directed to the 1 year warranty, which I paid for, and not the 90 day one which was given to me for free with the 1 year one.  No one explained to me that there is a difference even which should have been told to me from day one.  They have since changed their telephone prompts, but when I called in December and asked for the warranty dept they automatically sent me to the 1 year instead of 90 day and did not ask even which one I want.  I thought it was all the same thing.  When I found out there was a difference, they said I would receive $500 for the 1 year warranty and the buyout amount, in addition to the $150 because I would not have a $150 deductible with the 90 day warranty.  I have both of these in writing. 
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 RWS claims I put a claim in for a clogged drain and that is false. When it was determined that the they needed further information for the claim they did contact the plumber and asked and explained the information they needed to proceed with the claim  the plumber then sent the information needed to RWS in full detail and the issues that were going on. I had two separate issues going on with a hole in the kitchen drain and roots going through a sewage line, both causing clogged lines. In reference to the phone calls there was no abuse on the line and if recorded maybe someone should listen to the phone calls to verify the calls. It was not until I posted my experience on Facebook and had many repaonses from people, that the owner of the inspection company called me back after two months and the new director of RWS decided to call me back. I tried to contact the two people handling my claim for a month and a half and was given an excuse for a month and a half prior to that. Terrible customer service and now they try to put it on the customer. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Upon review of this claim, it appears Ms. [redacted] called in on 5/11/16 and stated that she had another company out to look at the issue who stated the failure was a city issue and that the repair would be covered by the city. From that point onward, we were waiting to hear from the homeowner...

regarding the city assessment of the same. If she is interested in continuing with RWS, please call in and ask for Cameron, the one year manager who will handle your claim personally from this point forward.

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 is correct only three days past between submitting claim and filling the complaint because it was I was told my claim was not going to be accepted if the contractor does not provide a break down of the labor and material cost separately. The contractor did provide on his invoice exactly what work was performed, so your statement saying no details provided is not correct, and the contractor is willing to talk with you and I mentioned this to the agent to provide any feedback required, but you chose not to call the contractor. The home inspection report did mention potential defects, but none of them were issues for water leak. I asked the inspector at that time if there were concerns of water leak and he clearly stated that the roof is good for another 2 years. This leak is in a different area from the pictures provided in the report. This was something that was not detected during the inspection. You rejected the claim because I don't have an itemized break down from the contractor for the labor and material, it's all combined in one invoice, however, you have it no where in your warranty saying that this was a requirement or any mention of such statement. You just made it up to reject the claim and get out of paying for the coverage. From the tone of your response, it's obvious you are going to deny everything and reject the response. This the nature and how you operate your business.]
Regards,
[redacted]

The homeowner submitted this claim on 22 August 2016. 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 contractor. The 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 4 recommended repairs, it only lists 2 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 Freon. However, the other two recommended repairs were not covered because there was no indication that there was any failure. As 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 homeowner. It 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 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”. As a result, RWS can only base their decision on the information provided in accordance with the homeowner’s policy, namely the tune-up claim and corresponding invoice. As 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 replacement. Unless 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.

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.
I would like to request to resolve this matter: I will accept the $479, and I will let the Revdex.com and the reporter know that we have settled this matter to my satisfaction. However, I will not provide you any five star reviews as you requested because that would be an outright lie. I will take the $479 offer and consider the case settled. Below is the email correspondences between myself and Mr. T[redacted] for the record:Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. I understand but I am not satisfied because I think RWS's policy is very narrow and deceitful.I never approved the $280 for the faucet and bathtub. I was not aware that there was a limit on reimbursement for the faucet.   I appreciate Revdex.com though. Thank you very much for your help.
Regards,
[redacted]

This claim was called in 18 February 2016 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 completed. The 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 money. On 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 money. At that point, due to the homeowner wanting to work with another contractor, a new diagnosis and estimate was required, which were submitted in late March. At that point, based on the new estimate, it was clear that the damage was not covered under her policy and so it was denied. We 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 process. It  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.

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.