Walter Kyles Insurance Agency

Revdex.comTo Whom It ay Concern:First and foremost, I would like to thank the above-mentioned bureau for notifying me about the alleged complaint lodged by the owner of Sottella IV LLC However, I am befuddled and bedazzled at the way the complainant structured his letter, in which it appears from a casual observer's perspective, that I was the contractor that violated the agreement; when in essence, I am just the insurance agent that procured the bond for the contractor So far as the owner of the afore-mention company (Sottella IV LLC), I do not know him nor have I engaged in any contract with him or his subjects In short, there is no privity of contract between he and I, in no form or fashion Therefore, his complaint to the Revdex.com about me should be considered hollow or non-existence The truth of the matter stems from the fact that, as an agent, I am the conduit by which information is transmitted So for as the owner of Sottella IV LLC is concerned, I understand his frustration with his dilemma and the fact that I did not immediately respond to his emails, but the fact remains that I did not ignore or disregard his emails, and, neither did I hang up on him intentionally Mind you, his initial phone call came in on Friday afternoon May 19, 2017, at a time, when the office was swarmed with customers; and, somehow trying to maneuver between customers and the other phone calls, his call accidentally got disconnected (We have four (4) phone lines at our office) Hopefully, this explanation will suffice to buffer his accusation that I deliberately hung up on him.Furthermore, I noticed that he complained to the Revdex.com via direct mail on June 2, 2017, about my non-response to his inquiry, but the time-frame for me to respond was limited to days, including two week-ends, which was not enough time for me to contact the contractor so that the claim could be verified and validated Moreover, the problem was further compounded by the fact that the contractor had moved his office from [redacted] Blvd, Beaumont *** to another location, and left no forwarding address When I attempted to call him, the contractor never answered his phone nor responded to his voice message "due to the fact" that his voice mail system had not been set up Yet, with my persistency, I was able to make contact with him on June 9, 2017, and the contractor related that no one had contacted him about a claim Understandably, if no one knew his new office address and his phone was malfunctioning; then, I can see why the situation escalated to this level In my discussion with the contractor, he revealed that he had moved to a new location at [redacted] ***, Beaumont TX ***.Moreover, I finally met with the said contractor in person on June 24, 2017, at approximately 3:P.MCST to discuss the matter In that discussion, it was discovered that the contractor had been working for the complainant for more than two years; and, that this dispute now pending, in not a single isolated fly-by-night situation In addition, according to the contract signed by both parties, the complainant chose the color of paint that was in conflict to the Historical District's scheme of color requirement (Contract is attached) Also, the job was broken down into two (2) or more parts whereby repairs were done to replace damaged and rotten facial boards and painting.Now, at this juncture, I am making a conscious decision to end this response because, upon further research, the contractor commenced and finished the job before he procured a valid $25,bond through my agency Now, the picture is clear why a permit was never obtained for the job, that emanate from the fact that a bond is mandatory to pull a permit As shown by the contract produced by the contractor, the job started just after the signing date of February 12, 2016, and, was completed sometime before April or May in Please, check the bond's date The Effective Date: 09/01/to 09/01/ Therefore, Old Republic Surety Company has no jurisdiction or control over ABC Contracting before he procured a bond through my agency Therefore, this mattI see moot.In the final analysis, the complainant needs to pursue the contractor on a personal basis, and not used the power of the bonding company to leverage his claim to fruition In essence, I hope my explanation give credence to the fact that, as an agent, I am a facilitator of claims whereby, I act as a conduit for whence information is transmitted to the company, and not to be the cesspool of someone else's bitterness and misplaced blame And, continuing in that vein, I want to add that this is a classic case of a frivolous and spurious claim that do not accomplish much of anything other than attack a person's integrity or damaged a company's reputation.Thank God for the Revdex.com who believe that there are "two sides to a story." That a unilateral presentation of one's position does not negate a bilateral response That silence does not breathe consent...all the time My final request is that my A+ rating by the Revdex.com remains intact despite the afore-mentioned matter

Revdex.comTo Whom It ay Concern:First and foremost, I would like to thank the above-mentioned bureau for notifying me about the alleged complaint lodged by the owner of Sottella IV LLC.  However, I am befuddled and bedazzled at the way the complainant structured his letter, in which...

it appears from a casual observer's perspective, that I was the contractor that violated the agreement; when in essence, I am just the insurance agent that procured the bond for the contractor.  So far as the owner of the afore-mention company (Sottella IV LLC), I do not know him nor have I engaged in any contract with him or his subjects.  In short, there is no privity of contract between he and I, in no form or fashion.  Therefore, his complaint to the Revdex.com about me should be considered hollow or non-existence.  The truth of the matter stems from the fact that, as an agent, I am the conduit by which information is transmitted.  So for as the owner of Sottella IV LLC is concerned, I understand his frustration with his dilemma and the fact that I did not immediately respond to his emails, but the fact remains that I did not ignore or disregard his emails, and, neither did I hang up on him intentionally.  Mind you, his initial phone call came in on Friday afternoon May 19, 2017, at a time, when the office was swarmed with customers; and, somehow trying to maneuver between customers and the other phone calls, his call accidentally got disconnected.  (We have four (4) phone lines at our office).  Hopefully, this explanation will suffice to buffer his accusation that I deliberately hung up on him.Furthermore, I noticed that he complained to the Revdex.com via direct mail on June 2, 2017, about my non-response to his inquiry, but the time-frame for me to respond was limited to 13 days, including two week-ends, which was not enough time for me to contact the contractor so that the claim could be verified and validated.  Moreover, the problem was further compounded by the fact that the contractor had moved his office from [redacted] Blvd, Beaumont [redacted] to another location, and left no forwarding address.  When I attempted to call him, the contractor never answered his phone nor responded to his voice message "due to the fact" that his voice mail system had not been set up.  Yet, with my persistency, I was able to make contact with him on June 9, 2017, and the contractor related that no one had contacted him about a claim.  Understandably, if no one knew his new office address and his phone was malfunctioning; then, I can see why the situation escalated to this level.  In my discussion with the contractor, he revealed that he had moved to a new location at [redacted], Beaumont TX [redacted].Moreover, I finally met with the said contractor in person on June 24, 2017, at approximately 3:30 P.M. CST to discuss the matter.  In that discussion, it was discovered that the contractor had been working for the complainant for more than two years; and, that this dispute now pending, in not a single isolated fly-by-night situation.  In addition, according to the contract signed by both parties, the complainant chose the color of paint that was in conflict to the Historical District's scheme of color requirement.  (Contract is attached)   Also, the job was broken down into two (2) or more parts whereby repairs were done to replace damaged and rotten facial boards and painting.Now, at this juncture, I am making a conscious decision to end this response because, upon further research, the contractor commenced and finished the job before he procured a valid $25,000.00 bond through my agency.  Now, the picture is clear why a permit was never obtained for the job, that emanate from the fact that a bond is mandatory to pull a permit.  As shown by the contract produced by the contractor, the job started just after the signing date of February 12, 2016, and, was completed sometime before April or May in 2016.  Please, check the bond's date.  The Effective Date: 09/01/2016 to 09/01/2017.  Therefore, Old Republic Surety Company has no jurisdiction or control over ABC Contracting before he procured a bond through my agency.  Therefore, this matter-as I see it-is moot.In  the final analysis, the complainant needs to pursue the contractor on a personal basis, and not used the power of the bonding company to leverage his claim to fruition.  In essence, I hope my explanation give credence to the fact that, as an agent, I am a facilitator of claims whereby, I act as a conduit for whence information is transmitted to the company, and not to be the cesspool of someone else's bitterness and misplaced blame.  And, continuing in that vein, I want to add that this is a classic case of a frivolous and spurious claim that do not accomplish much of anything other than attack a person's integrity or damaged a company's reputation.Thank God for the Revdex.com who believe that there are "two sides to a story."  That a unilateral presentation of one's position does not negate a bilateral response.  That silence does not breathe consent...all the time.  My final request is that my A+ rating by the Revdex.com remains intact despite the afore-mentioned matter.