Universal Home Protection

The correspondence by the complainant is notedOur response of May 13, was completed with care and diligence in response to the contents of the correspondence submitted by the complainant on May 6, Our firm will not respond to further communication from your organization on this matter and consider the matter closed.Respectfully Submitted,Will S***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]UHP has refused to address the issue of discrepancies in the reason for denial of the claim UHP has not made any effort to honor the contract to cover the original stated claim based on facts which were previous given I will not find this matter to be resolved until my claim is reimbursed in full Regards, [redacted]

This complaint is currently in negotiations between the complainant and UHP’s President.  No further response will be provided regarding this matter via the Revdex.com.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.First, Ms. [redacted]'s startment of how ambiguity in the contract should be interpreted is alarming. It reflects either an egregious failure to understand the products UHP sells to its customers and the environment in which it does business, or it is an unconscionable attempt to avoid the responsibilities assented to in the sale of such products. Contracts of adhesion, such as the one in question here, are strictly adjudicated contra proferentem. This is to that ambiguity in the contract is construed to the in the benefit of the party who did not draft the language. This doctrine is routinely applied by the state and federal court system, as well as by all regulatory authorities. It has a particularly rich history of application in Wisconsin. (See the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Hirschhorn v. Auto-Insurance Owners Company for an example). When, on the phone, Ms. [redacted] was asked if we could agree that the language in question "cost to the drain the boiler if no shut off valves are present" was ambiguous, she replied with "yes and no." This is the very definition of ambiguity. Second, her assertion that "cost to the drain the boiler system if no shut-off valves are present" clearly implies more than one valve needs to be present is stretching the limits of the English language. We would not accept that interpretation in any other scenario. Imagine a counter example. "Your bed is safe to sleep in, if no bed bugs are present." We would not interpret that to mean that one bed bug is acceptable, whereas two are not. A plain language reading of the contract belies Ms. [redacted]'s assertion. Moreover, even if we were to accept Ms. [redacted]'s interpretation as plausible, we find ourself with an ambiguous phrase which is resolved contra proferentem. This is to say that my assertion that this provision of the contract is irrelevant as a shut off valve is present is the appropriate interpretation of the contract language. Third, Part A of the contract indicates that the warranty covers only those items that are "correctly installed." As Ms. [redacted] points out, UHP is covering the replacement of the reducer valve, which is the failed and covered component. Per the contract, only the covered item must be installed correctly for the warranty to apply. No one has disputed that the this valve was installed correctly. Accordingly, UHP is responsible for the cost to replace the valve and install a new one. Fourth, if we accept that all parts somehow connected to the failed component must be installed "correctly," I argue the phrase is ambiguous. If UHP is intending to say "installed in a manner compliant with current code" or "installed per the manufacturer's recommendations," then the contract should specify that. Instead, I interpret "correctly installed" to mean "installed such that the installation is not the cause of the failure of the part." Fifth, Ms. [redacted] misrepresents the solution I seek. I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for UHP to cover the cost to installation of new parts to the system or the cost to bring my system in compliance with code. I ask only that they cover the cost, less my deductible, to replace the failed component on my system. If the contractor were to replace the component and do no other work, that cost is the repsonsibility of UHP. I would happy to pay any additional cost to install new components on my system. Accordingly, I do not accept the resonse made by the business. Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]UHP has refused to address the issue of discrepancies in the reason for denial of the claim.  UHP has not made any effort to honor the contract to cover the original stated claim based on facts which were previous given.  I will not find this matter to be resolved until my claim is reimbursed in full.
Regards,
[redacted]

The correspondence by the complainant is noted. Our response of May 13, 2015 was completed with care and diligence in response to the contents of the correspondence submitted by the complainant on May 6, 2015. Our firm will not respond to further communication from your organization on this...

matter and consider the matter closed.Respectfully Submitted,Will S[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The decision is arbitrary only by existence of a lot of rust. Rust can be reason for leakage but cannot be an evidence for a long period of leakage. The bad experience with Universal Home Protection led me to request prorated refund and cancellation. Please note the case on Revdex.com filed against Universal Home Protection on 11/25/2013 (http://www.Revdex.com.org/wisconsin/business-reviews/home-warranty-plans/univer...⇄ under 'The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction. (1 complaint)'). This case is similar in questioning their terms, and that customer did get prorated refund from Universal Home Protection. If laws changed after that time, the company should have updated their terms accordingly. If no laws change, I should get prorated refund.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 4, 2016 Our firm has reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated November 2, 2016, filed by the complainant concerning the boilers at his residence and UHP’s interpretation of the home warranty contract.  Our records show that on November 1, 2016, the complainant submitted a...

request for service with our firm stating that a radiator was leaking water into the dining room.  Our firm responded by referring the complainant’s request to one of our certified HVAC contractors.  Upon the contractor’s arrival, he found the water to the radiator had been shut off and he proceeded with the required repair, which was covered by the home warranty.  He then proceeded to inspect the two boilers located at the property and subsequently submitted a proposal to UHP indicating in part, “Both boilers are being fed by one reducing valve.  Each boiler is required to have its own backflow preventer and reducing valve.  The boilers do not have isolation valves.”  After speaking with the contractor, he confirmed that the boilers were improperly installed with both being fed by one reducing valve and neither boiler having isolation valves.  To correct the improper installation and bring the systems to code, additional work was required including completely draining and refilling the systems due to the non-existent isolation valves.  This procedure required additional fees in labor to complete the process.  UHP contacted the complainant and explained that UHP could not provide coverage for the additional fees caused by the improper installation and missing valves.  UHP noted a clause in the contract stating, in part, Not Covered--“cost to drain boiler if no shut off valves are present;” valves being plural.  The complainant contends that this statement is ambiguous and does not pertain to this situation because the boilers have one of the two required valves.  UHP’s decision in this matter remains unchanged.  For the purposes of further clarification, the following provisions of UHP’s contract must also be applied in this case.  Section A. Coverage states in part “UHP agrees to arrange for a qualified service contractor to repair or replace a covered component or appliance in the event of mechanical failure which occurred during the term of the warranty contract as a result of normal wear and tear.”  The costs to drain the boiler and install parts that are not currently installed is not a mechanical malfunction due to normal wear and tear.  Further, the contract states in part, “Repairs or replacements required as a result of improper installation, are not covered by this contract.”  Per the contractor, the boilers require draining, refilling, and installation of additional parts because they were improperly installed and must be code compliant.  Lastly, the contract states, “Upgrading or improvement of systems, components, and items due to the lack of capacity, failure to meet current building code(s) or zoning requirements is the responsibility of the owner and is not covered by this contract.”  The complainant did not acknowledge that UHP did adhere to the terms of the contract and is providing coverage for those mechanical malfunctions that occurred due to normal wear and tear during the term of the warranty contract.  UHP is clearly under no contractual obligation to rectify the improper installation, add new parts that do not currently exist, or bring the boiler systems up to code.  Further, UHP has no contractual obligation to provide coverage for any work done to the boilers due to improper installation.  However, in a good faith effort, UHP did agree to cover those items that malfunctioned during the contract term. UHP is a home warranty company, not an insurance company, and as such, is responsible for the remedy of mechanical failure due to normal wear and tear.  The warranty is not responsible to provide remedy by installing parts that are not currently installed or for making repairs to ensure the equipment is properly installed and code compliant.  UHP’s contract is regulated by the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin and they are the governing body to determine correct interpretation of the provisions of the contract.  The assertion that because the complainant did not draft the contract, and therefore the ambiguity should be construed in the complainant’s favor is unfounded.  UHP’s contract is clear regarding coverage for improperly installed equipment and code issues.   The complainant was advised of the proper procedure for filing a complaint.  This provision is clearly spelled out in the contract by the regulating agency.  In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kind. Respectfully submitted: Universal Home Protection LLC [redacted] Director of Operations

Review: I bought a new house in December of 2014 in which a home warranty was provided for the duration of one year. In April of 2015 I experienced electrical issues. In keeping with the terms of the warranty, a UHP contracted electrician was sent to my home to perform a diagnostic. After over 2 hours the electrician was unable to locate the problem. I called UHP and received permission to utilize an electrician of my choosing. My electrician located the problem quickly and called UHP to get approval before beginning repair work. The problem was a bad neutral wire that was damaged due to it's age. This qualifies as an equipment failure, and it's repair is a covered expense under the warranty terms and conditions. My electrician assigned two workers for the repair work to locate and repair the neutral wire. After completing the job I paid upfront in full and forwarded the invoice to UHP. The invoice contained a description of the problem, a breakdown of hourly labor and the cost of all equipment used. Approximately 2 weeks after submitting the invoice I contacted UHP to get an update on the processing of the claim. A claims manager stated he was in contact the with electrician and more information was needed. He would not explain what specific information he needed, only that he needed more detail from the electrician. I contacted the electrician who confirmed that he had been in contact with UHP and gave him all the information that he was able to. After several conversations with UHP and the electrician I was still unable to find out exactly what specific information UHP needed. With my last call with UHP the claims manager said he did not have enough information to make an informed decision to reimburse the claiim. The UHP manager stated that he believed code violations were repaired which is untrue, both my electrician and the service invoice state that the repair was needed due to natural wear and tear of the neutral wire. The manager did not give me an answer as to the status of the claim, nor did he explain exactly what he needed.Desired Settlement: Honor the terms of the warranty and reimburse the charges listed in the invoice.

Business

Response:

The correspondence by the complainant is noted. Our response of May 13, 2015 was completed with care and diligence in response to the contents of the correspondence submitted

Review: I received a Contract dated May 21, 2013 that specifies a cancellation term as follows, "The purchaser of the warranty plan may (within 15 calendar days of the delivery of the warranty of the contract) reject and return the warranty contract for a full refund; less actual costs or charges needed to issue and service the warranty contract."

I was informed the warranty services provided by Universal Home Protection (UHP) include mechanical failure. On October 24, 2013, I requested to utilize the warranty service when I came home from work and discovered my furnace was not working. [redacted] of UHP informed me that UHP would only cover the regular charges, not any after hours charges. When the contractor called to let me know he was on his way, he informed me that the warranty would not cover anything maintenance related. I was responsible for the full costs of the furnace call.

During the October 24 visit from the furnace contractor, I was informed by the contractor that we would need a low propane pressure switch, air filter upgrade, and new burners for the furnace. When I called UHP to request utilization of the warranty services again, I was informed by [redacted] of UHP that they only cover "mechanical failures." Josh went on to say that they would not cover the low propane pressure switch or the air filter upgrade, but that UHP "might" cover the burners, less the deductible.

At that point, I question why the furnace call was not covered on October 24. No where in the contract does the language specify that "repairs related to maintenance of the heating system are not covered." In addition, I became concerned that replacement burners for my furnace "might" be covered. It should be a "yes, new burners are covered under the policy" or "no, new burners are not covered under the policy."

As a result, I requested my policy be cancelled per a written request on November 12, 2013, with a pro-rated refund. The cancellation terms quoted in the first paragraph are silent with regard to a pro-rated refund after the first 15 days of the policy lapse. The cancellation terms only discuss how to receive a full refund.Desired Settlement: I request a pro-rated refund for the Home Warranty policy. The policy coverage is for the period of May 17, 2013 through May 16, 2014. I would like a pro-rated refund for the period of November 13,2013 through May 16, 2014. The policy purchase price was $425, which calculates to $1.19382 per day, for a total of 185 days, equivalent to a refund of $220.86.

The Universal Home Protection Basic Home Warranty contract is silent with regard to a cancellation of the contract for a partial (pro-rated) refund. As such, Universal Home Protection has the discretion to grant a pro-rated refund with the cancellation of my policy ([redacted]) as of November 12, 2013.

Business

Response:

This complaint has been resolved. Universal Home Protection has cancelled Ms. [redacted] home warranty plan per her written request and processed a refund for the pro-rated unused portion of her home warranty plan. She should be receiving that refund within the next week or so.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: The issue at hand is the company refused to cover a warranty covered item described in their Elite home warranty contract. The issue at hand is a broken built in microwave which is described as a covered item per section C of the warranty contract.

when I described my situation the customer service rep told me that it was not cover. When I told them that it falls within the covered items per my warranty they rudely responded that it did not. They told me to read to them where is said its coved. When I responded that it was clearly stated in the previously stated section that it would fall under the coverage. I responded that this is nothing stating that it would not be covered, she responded by saying that there is nothing stating that it would be covered. Which it not a true statement.

I rely on this appliance everyday and need it to be repaired.Desired Settlement: I would like them to cover the repair per my service agreement with them to do so. I signed up for this plan under the impressing that they were an honest trustworthy company who is there to help protect me from situations like this.

I am very disappointed with the company who has no problem with taking my money for the coverage but will not stand behind their policy.

And on top of that to get rude un-called for customer service on my first contact with this company has just left a very bad taste in my mouth.

I just want the company to make it right and hold up there end of our contract agreement.

I rely on this appliance and need it repaired.

Business

Response:

December 17, 2015Revdex.com of Wisconsin10101 W. Greenfield

Avenue, Ste. 125Milwaukee, WI 53214RE: Complaint ID [redacted]For: [redacted] Trade Practice ConsultantDear Ms. [redacted]:Our firm has reviewed

the complaint you forwarded to us dated December 15, 2015, filed by the

complainant concerning the built-in microwave at his residence. Our records show that on December 15, 2015, Universal

Home Protection (hereinafter UHP) received a request for service from the

complainant indicating the glass on the door of his microwave was broken. At that time, UHP’s customer service

representative informed the complainant that the home warranty does not cover broken

glass on appliance doors. The

complainant contended that the Warranty

Terms And Conditions states that built-in microwaves are covered. This contention is correct. However, section A. Coverage of UHP’s Warranty

Terms And Conditions states in part, “UHP agrees to arrange for a qualified

service contractor to repair or replace a COVERED component or appliance in the

event of malfunction or mechanical failure which occurred during the term of

the warranty contract as a result of normal wear and tear.” Further, section C. Components and Appliances Eligible for Basic Plan Coverage, sub-paragraph

entitled PRIMARY APPLIANCES,

sub-paragraph entitled Not Covered,

states in part, “doors or related parts”.

Had the complainant experienced a mechanical malfunction with the

built-in microwave (i.e. if the microwave stopped running or stopped heating,

etc.), UHP would have gladly accepted the request for service and followed

through with the repair or replacement of the appliance if repairs were not

possible.The complainant’s desired

outcome indicates that he wants UHP to provide coverage for the repair of his

built-in microwave. What he does not

indicate in the complaint is that the actual problem with his microwave is

broken glass on the door. He also

states, “I am very disappointed with the company who has no problem with taking

my money for the coverage but will not stand behind their policy.” UHP is clearly complying with the terms of our

home warranty contract, which was purchased and paid for by the seller of his

home, not by the complainant. Should the complainant

desire to proceed with further action regarding UHP’s denial of his request for

service, we would ask that he refer to UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions for direction in filing a formal

complaint with the agency who enforces our warranty contract.Please feel free to

contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted,UNIVERSAL HOME

PROTECTION[redacted]Director of Operations

Consumer

Response:

Review: I purchased a home in mid September and before purchase I had an inspection and everything was in working order. A month after closing I moved in and the furnace was no longer working. I contacted the home warranty company and they sent someone out. After looking at the furnace they told me the "secondary heat exchanger was restricted preventing the start up of the furnace". The company they had look at the machine told me it would cost $1400 to fix or would put that toward a credit for a new machine. The warranty company told me "It is certain that the causative factor for the failure of the unit to ignite in October was a progressive long term condition that existed prior to your acquisition of the home on September 10, 2013 but did not manifest until October attempt. I then decided to have a contractor I trust to check out the furnace and he replaced the "secondary heat exchanger" and said that was not the issue. It turned out to be cheaper to have him install a new furnace then to have him keep looking into what was wrong with the old one. Since the weather was already changing we decided to just install a new furnace.Desired Settlement: credit for the cost of the furnace $1100

Business

Response:

December 4, 2013

Revdex.com of Wisconsin

10101 W. Greenfield

Avenue, Ste. 125

Milwaukee, WI 53214

RE: Complaint ID [redacted]

For: [redacted]

Trade Practice Consultant

Dear Ms. [redacted]

Our firm has reviewed

the complaint you forwarded to us dated November 22, 2013, filed by the

complainant concerning the furnace at his residence. Our records show that on October 14, 2013, Universal

Home Protection (hereinafter UHP) received a request for service from the

complainant indicating that his furnace would not ignite. UHP referred the request for service to our

HVAC contractor in the area. On October

16, 2013, the HVAC contractor reported back to UHP that the secondary heat

exchanger in the furnace was plugged, which caused the furnace not to

ignite. After receiving the diagnosis

from the HVAC contractor, UHP’s account representative contacted the

complainant to inform him of the diagnosis.

During the conversation with UHP’s account representative, the

complainant indicated that the problem happened the first time he tried to run

the furnace and that he had not yet moved into the property. Upon learning this, the UHP account

representative informed the complainant that the warranty would not be able to

cover the problem because the furnace needed to be functioning properly and

subsequently mechanically malfunction in order to qualify for coverage.

Further, per the HVAC contractor, the only way a heat exchanger can

become plugged is if the furnace is running on a continual basis and it is over

a long period of time that the heat exchanger will ultimately become plugged,

thus ceasing the operation of the furnace.

Based on the complainant’s own words, UHP knows the furnace had not been

running because the complainant told UHP’s representative that he was not able

to get it to ignite the first time he tried to turn it on.

Later in the day on

October 16, 2013, the complainant called back and spoke to UHP’s account

representative again saying that the furnace ran during the home inspection

prior to his purchasing the home. The complainant

also stated that he wanted a second opinion.

UHP’s account representative informed the complainant that he could get

a second opinion, but UHP would not pay for the second opinion. The complainant again asked why UHP could not

cover the furnace and UHP’s representative explained that the heat exchanger

could not have become plugged when the furnace was not running. The complainant then said, “fine, then we’ve

been living in the house for the last month and have run the furnace

constantly.” UHP’s account

representative told the complainant he knew that was not true because the

complainant already stated during the previous conversation that the furnace

would not ignite when he attempted to run it for the first time and that he had

not yet moved into the house.

In his complaint, the

complainant indicates that he had a contractor that he trusted check the

furnace and he indicates that his contractor replaced the secondary heat

exchanger. He then states that his

contractor said that the secondary heat exchanger was not the issue. The question to be asked is why did his

contractor replace the secondary heat exchanger if that was not the issue? Logically, it appears that it was the issue

and that is why it was replaced.

The complainant’s desired

settlement states that he is requesting a credit for the cost of the furnace in

the amount of $1,100.00. UHP’s Warranty Terms

And Conditions are clear in stating that pre-existing conditions are not

covered by the warranty and for an item to qualify for coverage, it must be in

place and mechanically functioning properly and then malfunction during the

term of the contract. Since the first

time the complainant attempted to run the furnace it would not ignite, it

clearly had not been functioning properly.

The resolution the complainant is seeking is clearly outside the realm

of the warranty plan and UHP is not responsible for coverage of the furnace.

Please feel free to

contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully

Submitted,

UNIVERSAL HOME

PROTECTION

Director of

Operations