Consumer Law, Warranties Home warranty company denies our claim

[ilyashv]

The burners on our electic stove were not working properly. Since the stove is covered by home warranty, we made a claim to the home warranty company. A technician came and decided that fixing it would cost around $500. The home warranty company offered us $200 "toward the purchase of a new stove". After I told them that this stove costs around $1000 (this is a built-in rather than a free-standing stove), they contacted the technician again who told them that there was corrosion on the electrodes. Then the home warranty company referred to the clause in the contract

Improper Installation/Previous Repair. This Agreement does not cover any systems or appliances that require repair or replacement
as a result of improper installation, previous repair,… failure to properly clean, neglect, misuse, corrosion, rust and any modification to the system or appliance.

…and offered us the same $200 but as "courtesy", since, "they have a right to deny our claim".

At the same time, according to the contract, the company "will
arrange for a qualified service contractor and/or technician to repair or replace the systems and
appliances covered under this Agreement, when they become inoperable due to normal wear and tear.

The home warranty company does not deny that the stove became inoperable due to normal wear and tear, but now picked on the words "corrosion and rust" to avoid the payment. Can anyone advise us how to "explain" to them that they have to pay?

 

[dee_dub]

Can anyone advise us how to "explain" to them that they have to pay?

That's a tricky question, because maybe they don't have to pay. The policy pretty clearly excludes appliances that require repair or replacement due to corrosion and rust. Your appliance requires repair or replacement due to corrosion on the electrodes. Why do you think the insurance company should be responsible?

 

[ilyashv]

Because it got rust due to normal wear and tear. The common sense of the warranty is that they cover the repair unless there was a pre-existing condtion or negligence. Neither of these is the case.

 

[dee_dub]

I'm not sure I agree that the policy only excludes rust arising from pre-existing condition or negligence - the words themselves do not say that, although I agree the clause as a whole tends to lean that way.

If you want to pursue this, you're already on the right track. Tell the warranty company that the particular provision they are relying on is titled "improper installation and previous repair" and refers to damages caused by that type of hazard. Your rust was not (I don't know how you plan to prove that, but I'll take your word for it), and so is not excluded by the provision they rely on. As such, they can either honour the policy as required or you will sue them on it.

They will spend more money in legal fees fighting it in small claims than it would cost to simply pay out. Doesn't mean they won't fight it anyways on principle.