- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by njtosd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM #21215August 13, 2014 at 10:40 AM #777336DataAgentParticipant
Does the contract contain a dispute or arbitration clause?
August 13, 2014 at 11:17 AM #777338bibsoconnerParticipantThank you DataAgent for the quick reply and great question! I missed it when I read the contract, but yes, there is a “Dispute Resolution” clause that says one must use American Arbitration Association. I’ve attached the document (only 3 pages) for those interested :).
Frankly I find it quite confusing. “Faucets” and “Fixtures” are noted as Not Covered but only under the section BATHTUB WHIRLPOOL EQUIPMENT so it’s not clear (to me) if a normal bathroom sink faucet that’s leaking is covered or not. I didn’t mention it in my first posting, but I’ve already had some somewhat negative dealings with them. The electric pool cover malfunctioned a week after we moved in. We had paid extra for the policy to cover pool and pool equipment. We called them and were informed that a pool cover is not pool equipment. I pointed out that it didn’t say it was excluded anywhere in the contract. Their response? “Since it’s not listed as covered, it’s not covered”. Luckily it only cost me $100 to fix the pool cover.
August 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM #777339bibsoconnerParticipant[img_assist|nid=18836|title=Uploading pdf of contract|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=81]
Hmm. Not sure I can upload pdf…
August 13, 2014 at 12:36 PM #777340moneymakerParticipantGet 2 more quotes,see if they are relatively close. I had to replace one of ours and was surprised how expensive the part was, ceramic disc=expensive. Unfortunately it is probably not worth your time to take them to court, unless you enjoy that sort of thing i guess. You are getting more out of it than you paid in so don’t be too greedy, especially if it says fixtures are not covered. didn’t read above post-sounds like diverter is definitely covered. When ours broke it was in the open position so had to shut off the main to keep the hot water from coming out, until fixed. Me personally I would take the check and fix it myself, but that’s just how I am.
August 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM #777342bibsoconnerParticipantThanks moneymaker. You’re probably right. When you factor in the hassle, it probably is better to just take a check for ~$250. Like I said, I’d prefer to use a plumber that I pick and trust. That said, it does bother me that they can (from my point of view) just arbitrarily say, “Oh, that’s too much. We’ll just pay you this.”.
August 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM #777375njtosdParticipantThis is the classic problem of paying up front for services to be provided later. It reminds me of Wimpy in the Popeye cartoons – “I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.”
The problem is that if the home warranty company breaches (after you or seller pays them) you have to pay for arbitrators or litigation to get what you bargained for. Which will always cost more than just doing it yourself. I generally won’t pay for a warranty (or insurance) unless it is so cheap it doesn’t really matter or it would be worth litigating if the warranty or insurance policy were breached. Otherwise, there is little motivation for the company that has already collected the money to pay for your repairs.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.