• Report: #1054409
Complaint Review:

2-10 Home Buyers Warranty

  • Submitted: Tue, May 28, 2013
  • Updated: Tue, May 28, 2013

  • Reported By: thebestcpa — Thomasville North Carolina
2-10 Home Buyers Warranty
10375 E. Harvard Avenue, Suite 100 Denver, Colorado USA

2-10 Home Buyers Warranty Fraudulent Misrepresentations Denver Colorado

REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

I was contacted by phone and purchased an existing home warranty with 2-10 Home Buyers Resale Warranty (“2-10”), which is underwritten by Westchester Fire Insurance Company.  (See Exhibit #1)  In addition to “Base Coverage”, I was sold and paid extra for the “Supreme Protection” and “Enhanced HVAC Option” levels of coverage.  These levels of coverage include “equipment required to ensure compatibility with the working equipment” and “mismatched HVAC equipment”.  I experienced a breakdown of my old downstairs HVAC system on April 19, 2013.  The technician traced the problem to the air handler, which needs to be replaced.  However, only replacing the air handler would result in a “mismatched” system because the new air handler is not compatible (as determined by both the manufacturer and local HVAC technician) with the old Heat Pump, which is against state code. 

Back in August 2012, I had the exact same scenario with my upstairs HVAC system and 2-10 paid to replace my entire HVAC system with Goodman brand products because I had the “Supreme Protection” which covered “mismatched HVAC equipment” plus the language under “Base Coverage” ensures compatibility with existing working equipment.  Now, they refuse to replace the outdoor Heat Pump for the downstairs unit and expect me to cover the costs, citing that, “They were researching the scenario back in August and have now changed their policy to view this as an A.H.R.I. code requirement, which is not covered per Terms and Conditions Section E.3.”  However, I contend that the Heat Pump system repair is covered under the language as listed under “Base Coverage”, “Supreme Protection”, and “Enhanced HVAC Option”.  I also contend that the system is covered under the Terms and Conditions, Section D.2.a.(i) that states “In all other instances: a. We reserve the right to provide cash in lieu of repair or replacement services in an amount based on what the ordinary customer would
expect to pay after negotiating the best price for such services in your area and without the benefits of this contract when: (i) Following a response to a covered breakdown, the system or appliance would remain noncompliant with laws, regulations or code requirements;”.  Further, it is my interpretation that Section E.3. only pertains to code violation corrections and not to repairs or replacements due to system breakdowns. 

I paid extra for coverage to ensure both compatibility and properly matched equipment, but they contend that compatibility and matching equipment are required by code and code corrections are not covered.  I believe that it is fraud to make certain representations regarding coverage in order to sell the product, abide by those representations the first time there is a claim, and refuse to abide by the representations the second time the exact same scenario happens and cite that you have now changed your interpretation of the coverage.

Most of the time whenever I file a claim, 2-10 contacts me and informs me that certain repairs are not covered and that they are my responsibility to pay.  Their pattern is that they argue for as long as they can in order to make you cave in and pay for covered repairs because you need your items repaired quickly and cannot afford to delay the process.

Last summer on July 18, 2012, my upstairs HVAC failed (Heat Pump-split system).  2-10, sent their contractor, Air-Tech, out to my house to repair it.  The technician determined that there was a problem with the compressor in the outside condensing unit.  Parts had to be ordered and I was informed that there was a $100 non-covered charge for “piping” that I had to agree to pay before the parts could be ordered and my AC was fixed.  I explained that this was NOT a Geothermal Heat Pump and that there was no “Piping”.  We argued about this charge before 2-10 eventually followed up with the contractor to get more details for the charge.  It was determined that the contractor was simply charging for the modification needed to connect the fitting on the new compressor (large copper connection) to the existing small copper refrigerant line.  At this point, 2-10 agreed this charge was covered under the warranty, ordered the parts, and paid to have my HVAC system repaired.  However, I had to suffer in the heat for over a week and a half before the disputed charges were resolved and my system was repaired. 

Two short weeks later, the system quit working again and I notified 2-10 on August 15.  They again sent Air-Tech out.  It was determined this time that the air-handler in the attic needed to be repaired.  There was a delay as they tried to unsuccessfully locate replacement parts.  It was determined that a new air handler would have to be installed.  That was finally ordered six days later on August 21.  However, it was then determined that a new outside unit would also have to be installed to “match” the new air handler.  Also, Air-Tech refused to install the new air handler in the attic unless a pull down stair was also installed for access.  2-10 informed me that there was approximately $700 in non-covered charges for the repair that I must agree to pay before they would order equipment to complete the repair.  During that timeframe, the average daily high temperatures were ranging from the upper 80’s to low 90’s.  The temperatures inside my bedrooms upstairs exceeded 100 degrees while I argued with 2-10 about their outrageous position.  I had to go buy a box fan to try to pull some heat out of the house. 

They soon agreed that the $350 charge for electrical wiring was indeed covered under the warranty, but they refused to cover any portion of the $350 charge for the purchase and installation of the pull down stair or a new non-covered charge they had found for a new drain pan that was now required by code.  I argued and cited the language under Terms and Conditions, Section E.6, “When it is necessary to open walls, floors, or ceilings to perform a covered service, we will restore surfaces to a rough finish only.”  They argued that the clause only pertained to Electrical or Plumbing repairs.  I argued that the warranty said, “covered service” and made no mention of it being limited to only electrical or plumbing claims.  This went on for several days.  Since the costs to open up and restore the ceiling to a rough finish was supposed to be covered, I asked 2-10 to cover a portion of the costs of the pull down stair which would have been the equivalent to open up and restore the ceiling.  Eventually, they agreed to pay for $125 on the pull down stair if I agreed to pay $125 for the drain pan for a total of $350 for non-covered charges plus the $50 deductible.  That price seemed very high for a plastic drain pan, but I agreed and on August 29, 2-10 finally ordered the rest of the parts necessary for the repair.  The work was finally completed on September 7, which was over 3 weeks from the date that I had notified 2-10 for the second time that my HVAC system was not working.  All told, I went for over a month during the peak of last summer without my upstairs HVAC system working and I still believe their costs for the plastic drain pan was much less than $125. 

Adam Booth, Sales Support Manager at 2-10, says the mistakes were “human error”.  However, I talked with probably 10 different people at 2-10 during this claim and practically all of them were telling me the same thing.  There was one lady that told me early on that these charges were covered, but I can’t remember her name and can’t find my documentation of the call.  I was told by others at 2-10 that she was new, she made a mistake, and that they would follow up with her to get her straight.  Later, I randomly ended up talking with her again during this ordeal and told her what they said about her.  She told me that she wasn’t new, that no one at 2-10 had spoken with her about the claim, and she didn’t understand why 2-10 was taking this position.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/28/2013 12:22 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/2-10-home-buyers-warranty/denver-colorado-80231/2-10-home-buyers-warranty-fraudulent-misrepresentations-denver-colorado-1054409. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?