ComplaintsforRestoration 1 of East Baton Rouge

• Initial Complaint

  05/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Restoration 1 has falsified their costs to me and my insurance company, USAA, and threatening legal action against me if I don't pay them their inflated costs that exceed their Max Estimate costs and that USAA labels excessive overhead and profit by 6/9. All attempts to discuss these cost discrepancies with Rest1's owner over the past 4 weeks have been ignored. Brief summary of the events: [1] 2/24, Rest1 gave me a Good Faith Maximum Estimate of $13,025 based on an overestimated demo size of 3,380 sqft. [2] 3/13, Rest1 submitted invoice to USAA claiming costs of $30,065 based on the actual demo size of 2,642 (21% less sqft than the maximum estimate, but 131% more in cost). [3] To date, USAA has approved and paid Rest1 $14,622 based on the 2,642 sqft demo. [4] 5/10, owner sent me Final Payment email demanding the remaining invoice money (currently $16,443) with legal threats if I don't pay fully by 6/9. [6] USAA states that no more money is owed to Rest1 because the remaining invoice of $16,443 is grossly excessive Overhead and Profit based on falsely inflated unit costs. For example, in the Max Estimate, their max unit cost for "Tear out wet drywall" is $1.65, however they inflated this unit cost to $2.10 to USAA. Upon further investigation, Rest1's inflated items range from 11% to 305% inflated. Plus, Rest1 has already been paid more than their original Maximum Estimate of $13,025 (based on less sqft). USAA has been notifying Rest1 of their falsified submissions since April and have been ignored. [7] As of 5/19, Rest1 has been paid $14,622 based on 2,642 sqft of demo compared to original Maximum Estimate of $13,025 based on 3,380 sqft. [8] All data from USAA and the original Max Estimate suggest that Rest1 has been fully paid, has exaggerated their costs to my insurance company, and needs to withdraw their outstanding Bad Faith invoice of $16,443 and legal threats. All attempts to discuss with owner since 4/27 have been ignored.

  

  Business response

  07/27/2023

  Restoration 1 of East Baton Rouge refutes much of what this complaint is fundamentally about.  The client contacted us after discovering water damage to multiple areas of his home.  The client had an insurance claim open with his carrier and we were asked multiple times by the client to mitigate the damages so that there would be no possible outcome in which the mold growth would come back. The client went on to share that his carrier had already approved other scopes of work with no problem and that the adjuster, named Wyatt, was anticipating the mitigation portion of the claim to get started following the completion of the roof repairs. 

  
  

  My team responded and did write the client an estimate which was titled "Rough Max Estimate".  In our line of work, writing estimates up front always leaves room for scope items that must be added once demolition has started.  I wish we had x-ray vision and could see everything square inch of damage prior to beginning, but that is not possible.  In this case, the unforeseen damage behind the walls was among the worst I'd ever seen.  There was extreme wood rot along exterior walls that suggested this issue had been ongoing for some time.  I even stopped the job as this extensive new damage was found and phoned the client from his driveway.  I gave him my opinion that his carrier would throw a fit when they saw these photos and that the claim might be in jeopardy due to continual and repeated seepage.  I informed the client multiple times on that call of the monetary damages that would be associated with continuing to mitigate to which we tried to get on the phone with Wyatt.  After multiple failed attempts to have a conference call with the adjuster, the client asked me to continue as he was reassured by ***** many times before that this would all be covered.  I refused and shut the job down until the adjuster called back because I knew better. 

  
  

  Roughly 1 hour later, the client phoned me back telling me that ***** had returned his call and said to continue mitigation but not to turn in the photos of the microbial growth when we were finished.  I was assured the claim would be paid with no issue.  I admit, this is where I made a mistake.  I should have gotten that in writing.  As fate would have it, the client's claim was reassigned to another adjuster who operated with more integrity.  I had to explain to her multiple times of what ***** told us and she was in no position to correct this.  The carrier did pay a little more than half of what my company billed as they did not view this as a CAT 3 loss, which is unequivocally was.  That is the reason for the price discrepancy the claimant references.  There is no 'price per square foot' as he alludes to in our industry.  We bill insurance companies on a line item basis based on necessary scope items.  

  
  

  It is unfortunate that this claim has gotten to this point but the only bad faith actor here is the carrier, who supposedly told the client to continue with mitigation and omit certain pieces of the claim.
  

  Customer response

  08/01/2023

  
  Complaint: 20108803
  
  I am rejecting this response because this is a simple and straightforward complaint about misrepresenting prices to USAA and then attempting to pass that inflation on to me.  The owner clearly published his unit prices and rates to me in his original estimate.  Then he inflated these unit prices when he submitted the claim to USAA to try to get extra money; and USAA called him out.  The numbers don't lie.  
  
  For example, my bedroom, which had minimal damage:  
  In the estimate, he published his price/sqft to tear out wet insulation as $1.11/sqft; however, he submitted to USAA a higher price of $1.81/sqft.  
  Another example: the estimate stated each air scrubber is $80/day; however the price he submitted to USAA was $92/day.  
  And another: the price to apply an antimicrobial agent to the surfaces was published as $0.37/sqft; however he submitted to USAA a higher price of $1.50/sqft.  
  I can go on and on.  Without exception, every single line item price submitted to USAA was inflated from the Maximum Estimate.  Sqft can change but unit prices should not.  You don’t need X-ray vision to see that.  I have attached both the original Maximum Rough Estimate and the Restoration 1's USAA claim as proof.  In the Max Rough Estimate email, I was told not to share the original estimate with USAA. 
  
  Bottom line: his company's prices and rates were clearly published in the original estimate. I signed a contract claiming that his company has established prices and rates. And then he chose to increase these prices and rates to USAA in an attempt to achieve a gain at my detriment.  Since the owner still refuses to acknowledge any direct questioning about inflating his prices to USAA, I have brought in an Insurance Fraud attorney to investigate this matter further.  Anyone who deals with this company needs to cross check your estimates with their insurance billings.  I may not be the only one he has done this to.  An investigation is needed. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩