This is a complaint in reference to a Mitsubishi 60' Projection Television received from Replacement Source as covered by Safeco.
On or about April 26, 2012, the residence of the ****'s was struck by lightning which immediately caused a fire at residence. The lightning force, surge and resulting fire caused damage to many of the electrical appliances, the major electrical supply box to the residence, all computers, telephones, security system, yard lighting, fixtures, sprinkler system, radios, intercom system, dryer, clothing, carpet, structural damage and numerous other damage.
A claim was promptly filed with Safeco Insurance, assigned to agent, ****** ******** and the recovery process, fire and water damage clean-up and other repairs began. At the instruction of Ms. ********, we were put in contact with Replacement Source, Inc., and instructed Replacement Source, Mr. ******* ******** would be responsible for replacement of a majority of the personal property items. As such Mr. ******** would identify the item to be replaced, research his vendor for the specific item, purchase the item through his vendor and have the item(s) delivered.
At no time were the ****'s involved in the selection of the vendor, nor were they provided with receipts, warranties or any other manufacturer details. This was certainly the case as it relates to the replacement item, Mitsubishi 60" Projection Television. The ****'s were totally reliant upon the products sent by Replacement Source, Inc., and was told specifically by Ms. ****** ********, agent for Safeco, that there was not any flexibility as to replacement items and vendors selected.
She been required to obtain assistance in the movement of the television, on two occasions. The explosions have occurred without any notice or indication such was about to occur. The last incident occurred at 3:30a.m. on Tuesday morning, August 6, 2013, just four months from the first occurrence.
The first occurrence happened on or about April 17, 2013, when suddenly there was a loud explosion then the smell of smoke or something burning. Immediately at the time of the first occurrence, Replacement Source was contacted. Emails will show that both Mr. ******* ******** and Mr. *** *****, Manager for Mr. ******** was told of the concerns with the manner of the explosion in the television and both insisted the television could not be replaced but offered a repair option based upon what they "guessed" was the problem based upon speaking with technicians with Mitsubishi. They never expressed any concern for the "burning" smell coming from the television nor the concerns of ****** ****, as she explained her concern of being alone as a result of the death of ***** **** and the explosive nature of the situation.
Replacement Sources,Inc., insisted the best they could do would be to order a lamp part, which they stated was the cause and send a repair person, which was done. However within four months the same occurs, again.
Replacement Source never stated there was a history of problems with this television, which was well known or should have been by Replacement Resource, Inc., based upon media coverage. Records will show the television which had been sent to the ****'s was discontinued due to repeated lamp problems and had a known history of lamp explosions.
Further Replacement Source, Inc., knew or should have known due to the nature of their business and in their normal course of business, the type of products which are being sent to customers.
After a thorough investigation of this matter I seeking your assistance with the following:
(1.) I would like to receive a replacement television, in like size and value; or
(2.) A check in the amount of $ 7, 500.00 which would allow for the purchase of a similar television such as Samsung with warranty package, extended service agreement, delivery and set-up, cost reimbursement for assistance with moving television on two occasions, cost for mailings and other related cost .
Contact Name and Title: *** *****, VP
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ******@replacementsource.com
ReSource was brought into the ****'s homeowner insurance claim by Safeco. Our role was to evaluate the damaged items for current like, kind and quality replacement products. We spoke with Mrs. **** regarding her items and inquired if she needed help in replacing them. With her verbal approval and the adjuster's approval, we coordinated the shipping of the replacement items.
One of the items damaged was a projection television. The current replacement model was the Mitsubishi DLP. Mitsubishi was the only manufacturer that made a projection style television at the time of her loss. ReSource arranged the purchase and delivery of the new television to her from Best Buy. Mitsubishi has a 1 year warranty on their televisions. As stated in the Owners Manual and online at www.mitsubishielectric.com.
After approximately 11 months of ownership, the bulb went out on the Mitsubishi television. Mrs. **** notified us of the problem and we coordinated with Mitsubishi to replace the bulb and pay for the installation. Mitsubishi would cover the cost of the bulb under her warranty, but would not cover the cost to install it. Although we were not liable for this issue, as a measure of good faith we elected to absorb the cost to install the bulb to be certain Safeco had a happy customer. Mrs. **** recently notified us that a similar problem has occurred again and would like to return the TV and get a new one. We notified Mitsubishi of her concerns and wishes. Mitsubishi told us that the warranty has expired and they would not help any further. The bulb on these televisions has a life expectancy based on the amount of usage and various environmental factors that are out of the control of the manufacturer.
We notified Mrs. **** that Mitsubishi would not assist us with her problem and that the warranty had expired. Best Buy has a 30 day return policy as does ReSource. The television can not be returned for credit nor can we take it back after 15-16 months of use.
We notified Safeco Insurance of the situation and reviewed the facts with management. They feel that we (ReSource) have fulfilled our responsibilities in this matter. They also notified us that they will work with Mrs. **** to address her concerns and see if they can make this unfortunate situation better.
I was notified this morning that Safeco has made an offer to Mrs. **** to purchase the Mitsubishi Television from her and this is being handled by their legal dept and I may no longer have any contact with her. I do not have any additional details of the offer but will be notified of the final outcome.
I believe this complaint should be removed from our BBB report as the matter is between herself, her insurance company and the manufacturer of the product. At this point, we are not allowed any contact with her to assist in any way so our hands are totally tied on finding a resolution for her. However, I feel certain Safeco will address her issues in a timely manner and find a solution that will be acceptable.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This response is not acceptable due to the following.
(1) No settlement has in fact occurred,
(2) Replacement Source has knowingly participated in deceptive business practices when they knew or should have known the product sent to the home of a disabled, wheelchair veteran was defective and had a stated history of such by the manufacturer,
(3) Replacement Source participated in deceptive business practices when they failed to provide the customer with all warranties, sales documentation at the time of the sale, thereby creating an atmosphere and appearance of deception,
(4) Replacement Source failed to provide customer with reasonable responses and accountability when they knew or should have known the product provided by and through their agents were defective and had a history of such, nationally and internationally.