Metro Home Insulation, LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2014/11/07) */ ***response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original document is available using the online complaint system) I write in response to the homeowner's complaint filed with your agency against Metro Home Insulation, LLC ("MHI")For the purpose of anonymity, as requested by the Revdex.com, the complainant will be referred to as the "homeowner" herein Contrary to the allegations set forth in the complaint, the actions and conduct of MHI did not give rise to the conditions and resulting damage of which the homeowner complainsIt is our belief that the conditions and resulting damage were caused by individuals and entities over which MHI had no control or right of controlIn addition, it is our belief and opinion that the humidity level within the home and the failure to properly and adequately remove snow from the roof, which allowed the accumulated snow to block the roof venting and impede proper ventilation, contributed to these conditions and resulting damage MHI completed its work on the home in July The first notice of complaint received from the homeowner of which MHI has record is his letter of December 6, In his letter, the homeowner raises concerns with temperature control in his master bathroom, ice damming, and a frozen water line to the master bathThe MHI employee responsible for response to homeowner concerns at that time is no longer with the companyTo the extent the homeowner feels as though the concerns expressed in this letter were not properly addressed, we extend our apologies directly to homeownerIt is our company policy to respond to all such complaints and concerns timely and appropriately On February 18, 2014, MHI received a call from the homeownerThe homeowner called to inform MHI of the presence and melting of frost at the underside of the roof deckDuring this call the homeowner also informed MHI that the indoor humidity level of the residence was set at 36% MHI sent an employee to homeowner's residence on the same day, February 18, Upon arrival, the MHI employee noticed that the homeowner had failed to remove snow from the roofThe accumulation of snow at the roof had covered and blocked most of the roof ventsBlockage of the roof vents prohibits or impedes the necessary and proper ventilation of the atticLack of proper attic ventilation causes and contributes to the creation of ice dams on the roofThis is even more prevalent with extreme temperatures and elevated snow depths, like occurred in Minnesota during the winter of 2013/ MHI explained to the homeowner that the combination of the indoor humidity level and blockage of the roof vents caused or at the very least contributed to the conditions of which the homeowner complainedMHI also requested access to the home for the purpose of conducting a limited inspection of the home's atticAccess was denied by the homeowner MHI was not made aware of any subsequent inspection or testing nor has any record of any results from the infrared scan and blower door test referenced by the homeowner in the complaintIn any event, according to the homeowner's complaint, the results indicated cold air infiltration at the exterior walls of the master bedroom, gaps in insulation, and possible cross-infiltration through framing at the exterior walls of the master bedroomEven if true, these results are not conclusive evidence of MHI's fault or liability As with any residential construction, various trades (electricians, plumbers, mechanical contractors) work within the exterior walls, before and after insulation installationNot only do these trades make penetrations in and through the exterior walls, all of which if not properly sealed can cause and contribute to hot or cold air infiltration in and through the exterior walls, they may and do manipulate and move the insulation installed within the wall cavityThese other trades may and do fail or forget to replace and/or reattach the insulation thereby leaving a gap in the insulationIt is just as plausible and possible, if the results of the infrared scan are accurate, that one of these other trades moved or manipulated the insulation previously installed by MHI It is unclear what it meant by "possible cross infiltration through the framing at the exterior walls of the master bedroom"However, as framing members have no to very little insulating quality, it is common for the framing members to demonstrate or show heat loss or transferThat is not evidence of no insulation or poor workmanship on the part of MHI Finally, the work performed by MHI at this residence underwent and passed an insulation inspectionIf the insulation installed by MHI was deficient at installation, it would not have passed this inspection It is our belief that all work performed by MHI was code and industry standard compliantThe work of MHI did not cause nor contribute to the conditions complained of by this homeowner Further, the applicable statute of limitations (years from date of notice) bars action by this homeowner Although unfortunate that the homeowner has experienced the complained of conditions at his home, given the foregoing, we are unwilling to commit to any payment in resolution of this homeowner's complaint

"I write on behalf of Metro Home Insulation, LLC ("MHI") with respect to the above matterThe customer was contacted and this dispute has been resolved"

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/11/07) */
[redacted]response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original document is available using the online complaint system).
I write in response to the homeowner's complaint filed with your agency against Metro Home Insulation, LLC...

("MHI"). For the purpose of anonymity, as requested by the Revdex.com, the complainant will be referred to as the "homeowner" herein.
Contrary to the allegations set forth in the complaint, the actions and conduct of MHI did not give rise to the conditions and resulting damage of which the homeowner complains. It is our belief that the conditions and resulting damage were caused by individuals and entities over which MHI had no control or right of control. In addition, it is our belief and opinion that the humidity level within the home and the failure to properly and adequately remove snow from the roof, which allowed the accumulated snow to block the roof venting and impede proper ventilation, contributed to these conditions and resulting damage.
MHI completed its work on the home in July 2007. The first notice of complaint received from the homeowner of which MHI has record is his letter of December 6, 2011. In his letter, the homeowner raises concerns with temperature control in his master bathroom, ice damming, and a frozen water line to the master bath. The MHI employee responsible for response to homeowner concerns at that time is no longer with the company. To the extent the homeowner feels as though the concerns expressed in this letter were not properly addressed, we extend our apologies directly to homeowner. It is our company policy to respond to all such complaints and concerns timely and appropriately.
On February 18, 2014, MHI received a call from the homeowner. The homeowner called to inform MHI of the presence and melting of frost at the underside of the roof deck. During this call the homeowner also informed MHI that the indoor humidity level of the residence was set at 36%.
MHI sent an employee to homeowner's residence on the same day, February 18, 2014. Upon arrival, the MHI employee noticed that the homeowner had failed to remove snow from the roof. The accumulation of snow at the roof had covered and blocked most of the roof vents. Blockage of the roof vents prohibits or impedes the necessary and proper ventilation of the attic. Lack of proper attic ventilation causes and contributes to the creation of ice dams on the roof. This is even more prevalent with extreme temperatures and elevated snow depths, like occurred in Minnesota during the winter of 2013/2014.
MHI explained to the homeowner that the combination of the indoor humidity level and blockage of the roof vents caused or at the very least contributed to the conditions of which the homeowner complained. MHI also requested access to the home for the purpose of conducting a limited inspection of the home's attic. Access was denied by the homeowner.
MHI was not made aware of any subsequent inspection or testing nor has any record of any results from the infrared scan and blower door test referenced by the homeowner in the complaint. In any event, according to the homeowner's complaint, the results indicated cold air infiltration at the exterior walls of the master bedroom, gaps in insulation, and possible cross-infiltration through framing at the exterior walls of the master bedroom. Even if true, these results are not conclusive evidence of MHI's fault or liability.
As with any residential construction, various trades (electricians, plumbers, mechanical contractors) work within the exterior walls, before and after insulation installation. Not only do these trades make penetrations in and through the exterior walls, all of which if not properly sealed can cause and contribute to hot or cold air infiltration in and through the exterior walls, they may and do manipulate and move the insulation installed within the wall cavity. These other trades may and do fail or forget to replace and/or reattach the insulation thereby leaving a gap in the insulation. It is just as plausible and possible, if the results of the infrared scan are accurate, that one of these other trades moved or manipulated the insulation previously installed by MHI.
It is unclear what it meant by "possible cross infiltration through the framing at the exterior walls of the master bedroom". However, as framing members have no to very little insulating quality, it is common for the framing members to demonstrate or show heat loss or transfer. That is not evidence of no insulation or poor workmanship on the part of MHI.
Finally, the work performed by MHI at this residence underwent and passed an insulation inspection. If the insulation installed by MHI was deficient at installation, it would not have passed this inspection.
It is our belief that all work performed by MHI was code and industry standard compliant. The work of MHI did not cause nor contribute to the conditions complained of by this homeowner.
Further, the applicable statute of limitations (2 years from date of notice) bars action by this homeowner.
Although unfortunate that the homeowner has experienced the complained of conditions at his home, given the foregoing, we are unwilling to commit to any payment in resolution of this homeowner's complaint.