DRIRITE Disaster Restoration

We understand that the loss occurred on 8/1/19 and another company started the project. DriRite initially received the call from our client, identified as Invitation Homes on 8/4/19. When we arrived on 8/4/19, we were refused access to the home by the tenant (complainant). We were instructed to return again on 8/7/19 and arrived to find sewage and debris on the tile floor of the bathroom and hallway as well as in the kid's bedroom carpeting. We immediately took initial response actions and sealed off the impacted areas of the home, cleaned up the sewage debris and placed the area under negative air pressure and began drying, to prevent additional damage to the structure. We also bagged some personal property at the request of the tenant. At that time, we determined the scope of impacted materials and submitted our proposal to our client.

The owner (our client) made numerous attempts to gain access to the home so that the property could be preserved. All attempts were refused by the tenant (for reasons stated later) until the owner finally posted an emergency entry order (per their contract I presume). We were provided access to the home to begin the remediation process on 8/23/2019 by the owner. An owner's representative was present for a brief while, but the tenant (wife) was present during our entire visit. Because of the difficulties with the tenant (mainly the husband) before this day, we required that a project manager be on site during the entire visit, which is an extremely rare occurrence, but we felt it was imperative on this project.

Of note, the tenant (wife) was inside our work areas while we were performing the remediation of sewage impacted materials, taking photos. Towards the end of the day she entered the work area again, but this time was different. She began taking photos of our technicians and when asked not to, she aggressively began taking photos of our lead technician, violating his personal space. Because of this violation, he reacted by lowering the phone from his face and she reacted by running out of the house. Ultimately, the tenant called the police about 4 hours later and filed a report. Interestingly, the purpose of the police visit on 8/23/19 was to document the altercation because the complainants felt that our employees "looked like criminals". None of the employees have a criminal record and are all very mild mannered.

The police were called back to the home I believe 2 additional times to document additional details and finally to press charges. As of this response, the police have interviewed each employee that was on site as well as myself and no further action has been taken.

The tenant emailed on several occasions and provided the ultimatum of "demand all applicable licensing, insurance policies and coverage information, from DriRite, as there will either be expeditious and appropriate settlement, multiple claims will be filed and vigorously pursued".

As the tenant was not our client, we were told by our client not to respond to their requests and that they were handling the matter. The personal property damaged by this loss was apparently not covered by the owner of the property (typical), which is why renters insurance is available for purchase. Essentially, DriRite is caught in the middle of a dispute between the owner and the tenant and at the root of this false claim by the tenant is an attempt to get money from us.

DriRite is not responsible for causing the sewage backup in their home any more than we are responsible for the tenant not having insurance to cover their personal property.

DriRite left the project shortly after the situation with the tenant on 8/23/2019 but had an entire schedule mapped out to restore the property, in preparation of reconstruction. We acknowledge that a building permit is required for the reconstruction of the home but there is not a requirement to obtain a permit to remove affected materials from the home and return the home to a safe and clean condition, which the owner was trying to do since the loss occurred. The tenant delayed the project with the goal of forcing the owner to replace personal property.

DriRite is also not responsible for any of the grievances outlined in the complaint regarding "almost 50 maintenance incidents, in violation of permitting and code requirements, and +400 written correspondences".

Ultimately the desired resolution by the complainant has already been achieved as it relates to DriRite, as we will not be returning to this project. As for their personal property, we have nothing to do with it and suggest that their complaints be taken elsewhere.

It is unfortunate that the customer feels that DriRite caused the failure of the floor, of note the customer is not our direct client. DriRite protected portions of the garage flooring for repairs with 6 mil polyethylene sheeting, held down by 3M painters tape. This included protecting the logo, probably at the customer's urging. The tape was adhered to the garage floor for less than 7 days.

It is clear that if the epoxy clear coat application over the logo had been successful, painters tape would not be able to lift it. We suggest that the customer contact the company that installed the logo and performed the epoxy work.

If it was a DIY project, we suggest that the manufacturer be contacted to determine the suitability for covering a large logo with their clearcoat product. Perhaps the clearcoat was not suitable to apply over the logo, as evidenced by the poor bonding, or it was not mixed or prepared properly.

Rustoleum, a common DIY brand states the following regarding testing previously painted surfaces to determine the suitability of applying their epoxy products:

Test the adhesion of the remaining paint on the surface by doing the following:

1. With a single-edged razor blade, cut an X through the coating and down to the concrete.

2. Apply a 4" piece of duct tape over the X and press firmly.

3. Completely remove the tape with one quick pull.

4. If less than 25% of the taped area is removed, the existing coating is adhering well and you may apply the EpoxyShield system over the existing coat. Thoroughly clean the surface to remove any dirt or contaminants. Prior to applying the EpoxyShield, the previous coating *** either need to be scuff sanded with coarse sandpaper, or primed with our Garage and Concrete Floor Primer.

5. If more than 25% of the taped area is removed with the tape, the original coating is not adhering well, and the floor should not be coated unless all previous paint is removed using a concrete floor sander or suitable paint stripper.

If the manufacturer suggests cutting into the surface and then using duct tape to test adhesion, painters tape should not have been a problem for this surface. It is clear that this area was doomed since installation and it is unreasonable to suggest that DriRite is responsible for the poor bond of the clearcoat and subsequent failure, simply because we applied 3M painters tape to the surface.