STP Concrete LLC

The complaint you received was rather misleading, because it (accurately) stated that BHL "was under contract to raise house," but inaccurately stated that the "[r]ear decking was not braced correctly and fell." The complaint is initially misdirects, because it fails to acknowledge that Mr [redacted] 's house and its existing deck had already been safely raised, lowered, and anchored onto its new foundation when a storm caused the existing deck to collapseThis existing deck was salvaged and elevated per the homeowner's request despite the fact that its supporting joists were clearly rotted prior to BHL even signing the contractMoreover, this suspect deck collapsed in a storm, at a time when this client was presumably in their primary Pennsylvania residence - more than a hour away from the project site and bad weatherWhat really seemed to concern this homeowner is that he could not get a copy of BHL's insurance policy upon which to make a claimMy client's cargo and rigger's insurance provides coverage to BHL when their client's house and it belongings are elevated off the foundationIt is not to be used for clients to make claims due to damages that arose based on their existing structural shortcomings and/or weather events outside of BHL's controlMy client is understandably protective of their insurance, because it is such a substantial expense in their inherently risky tradeThis client seemed to feel entitled to this policy and reacted negatively when the request was declinedNonetheless, BHL also understands that its clients do not always grasp these coverage nuances, so they try to be accommodating as possible in providing discounts to replace whatever existing portion of the house failedAt the present time, BHL's Operations Manager is continuing to negotiate the scale of this elective expense by BHL in order to preserve the relationship with the clientI respectfully ask that the Revdex.com take care to carefully analyze this complaint and BHL's response, because assuming the facial validity of a complaint is a practice about which neither BHL nor its insurance carriers can ever be cavalierBHL is a family-owned business that is fiercely protective of its established good name in the construction industryAs their attorney, the challenge posed by a complaint based on inaccurate facts is not a burdenHowever, in the arena of public relations, every complaint must be handled delicatelyI trust that my more thorough explanation is sufficient to persuade the Revdex.comBut, if you have any further questions about this complaint, or BHL's response, please do not hesitate to reach out to me via email or telephoneThank you for your timeTruly, [redacted]

The complaint you received was rather misleading, because it (accurately) stated that BHL "was under contract to raise house," but inaccurately stated that the "[r]ear decking was not braced correctly and fell." The complaint is initially misdirects, because it fails to acknowledge that Mr....

[redacted]'s house and its existing deck had already been safely raised, lowered, and anchored onto its new foundation when a storm caused the existing deck to collapse. This existing deck was salvaged and elevated per the homeowner's request despite the fact that its supporting joists were clearly rotted prior to BHL even signing the contract. Moreover, this suspect deck collapsed in a storm, at a time when this client was presumably in their primary Pennsylvania residence - more than a hour away from the project site and bad weather. What really seemed to concern this homeowner is that he could not get a copy of BHL's insurance policy upon which to make a claim. My client's cargo and rigger's insurance provides coverage to BHL when their client's house and it belongings are elevated off the foundation. It is not to be used for clients to make claims due to damages that arose based on their existing structural shortcomings and/or weather events outside of BHL's control. My client is understandably protective of their insurance, because it is such a substantial expense in their inherently risky trade. This client seemed to feel entitled to this policy and reacted negatively when the request was declined. Nonetheless, BHL also understands that its clients do not always grasp these coverage nuances, so they try to be accommodating as possible in providing discounts to replace whatever existing portion of the house failed. At the present time, BHL's Operations Manager is continuing to negotiate the scale of this elective expense by BHL in order to preserve the relationship with the client. I respectfully ask that the Revdex.com take care to carefully analyze this complaint and BHL's response, because assuming the facial validity of a complaint is a practice about which neither BHL nor its insurance carriers can ever be cavalier. BHL is a family-owned business that is fiercely protective of its established good name in the construction industry. As their attorney, the challenge posed by a complaint based on inaccurate facts is not a burden. However, in the arena of public relations, every complaint must be handled delicately. I trust that my more thorough explanation is sufficient to persuade the Revdex.com. But, if you have any further questions about this complaint, or BHL's response, please do not hesitate to reach out to me via email or telephone. Thank you for your time. Truly, [redacted]