Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. 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.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/21/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  ServiceMaster was supposed to provide mold remediation in my basement. Their website lists removal of the mold and cleaning as the final step. They exposed the mold by removing carpet and some drywall but didnt remove the mold. They placed a fan and dehumidifiers that caused the mold to be blown throughout my home. They sprayed a sanitizer in a small area. I have cancer and severe allergies and asthma. My disabled daughter is immunocompromised, has severe allergies and a rare pain disorder. We both became sick. I had to beg the project manager to cover the exposed mold. He very reluctantly sent someone to my home after several hours and after he initially refused my request. The project manager (PM) provided my insurance company with an estimate and detailed description of the work. The ** did not write a contract or scope of work document to provide me with any information or details. He wants me to sign a document stating that the mold remediation work is completed. My daughter and I are very sick with asthma and allergies from this extreme mold exposure.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/24/2025

  During my inspection, I identified water intrusion that caused damage to the living room and craft room in the basement. A thorough inspection of the basement was conducted using specialized moisture-detection meters to assess the extent of the damage and develop a scope of work to restore the property to normal condition. 
  I reviewed the Master Moments guide with the homeowner, *****, explaining the scope of work for water mitigation, which included the removal of affected carpet, pad, tack strips, baseboards, drywall, and insulation, as well as the application of antimicrobial treatments. I also left the Master Moment Water Recovery Guide with *****, as it contains the recommended scope of work. 
  We provided water mitigation services in accordance with IICRC S500 guidelines, as no visible evidence of microbial growth was observed during the inspection or mitigation process. Farmers Insurance submitted a water mitigation repair estimate based on ServiceMasters initial scope of work, which I reviewed in detail with ***** prior to commencing any work. The scope of work included: 
  Asbestos testing due to the age of the home (1979). 
  Removal of affected carpet, pad, tack strips, baseboards, drywall, and insulation. 
  Application of antimicrobial treatments, as the loss was classified as Category 2 (gray water) water loss. 
  Placement of drying equipment, including air movers and dehumidifiers, to restore the structure to its normal moisture content levels. 
  During the mitigation process, no visible microbial growth was observed, and only water damage to the framing was noted. ***** did not raise any health concerns during the inspection or mitigation process. 
  The signed work authorization explicitly covered water mitigation. On Saturday, when the crew arrived onsite to monitor the drying process, they confirmed that the affected materials had reached normal moisture content levels and met the established drying goals. The crew then picked up the drying equipment. 
  At this time, ***** expressed concerns about the water-damaged framing and inquired whether it could harbor mold. The crew immediately notified me, and I reached out to ***** to address her concerns. I clarified that ServiceMaster had not observed any potential microbial growth prior to or during the mitigation process. I reassured ***** that we could apply antimicrobial treatment again and contain the areas of concern using 6-mil plastic as a precautionary measure. However, removal of the bottom plate framing would require prior approval from the insurance company. 
  I assured ***** that I would coordinate with the on-call manager to schedule containment setup. The On-Call Manager was able to get back to the home the same day to cover the water-damaged bottom plate framing with 6-mil plastic while awaiting further instructions from the insurance company. 
  I followed up with the adjuster from Farmers on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, regarding the water-damaged framing. The adjuster asked ServiceMaster to upload our final estimate for the mitigation and noted that the damage to the framing would be addressed during the repair portion of the claim. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/27/2025

  Complaint: 22839202
  
  I have reviewed the business' response and am rejecting it because: 

  ******* did not provide any of the documents listed. I repeatedly requested a scope of work which he never supplied. I have given permission to Farmers to pay for the carpet removal, pad, baseboard and drywall. ******* did not give me any brochures, documents, contact or any form of written documentation.

  
  

  The information that ******* states in the remainder of his response simply reiterates the lack of actual contract or scope of work. He reiterates the removal of the carpet, drywall. This is not in dispute. 

  
  

  ******* did not inspect any part of the work that was done. He sent employees to get the fans and told them to have me sign a document that the work was completed. He didnt attempt to view the work until I refused to sign false documents. He was in my home the day the work started. And never returned or inspected any work. His manager, ****, was the person who placed the plastic over the exposed drywall. **** stated to me that the mold was severe. 

  
  

  I have multiple witnesses who saw and smelled the mold. I request an itemized receipt for what they are processing through insurance.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/30/2025

  Our Director of Mitigation Operations, *** will personally call ***** ******* to help resolve any issue. For further clarification, please see the response below. 

  
  ServiceMaster was hired to perform water mitigation services. ServiceMaster performed the services using the **** industry standards. ServiceMaster only billed for the allowed water mitigation charges. ServiceMaster did not perform, ServiceMaster was not hired, nor did ServiceMaster charge for mold remediation. Ms. ********************* a photo from the Mold Remediation Services section of our website. The photo highlights the steps Containment, Removal, Cleaning, and Restoration of a Mold Remediation project. As previously stated, ********************* claim pertains to Water Mitigation. If Ms. ******* would like mold remediation services, she would first need to contact an IEP, who would do an air sample to see if mold remediation is necessary. We would then write an estimate based upon the IEP's air sample and mold protocol. Ms. ******* can verify this with her insurance adjuster. 
  In summary, on December 19, 2024, *** ******* met with the homeowner, Ms. ***** *******, to inspect the loss, review the Water Recovery Guide, and provide a detailed explanation of the scope of work required for water mitigation. During this visit, *** walked Ms. ******************** each critical step necessary to effectively address the water damage.

  
  At the conclusion of our meeting, Ms. **************** provided with the Master Moments Water Recovery Guide for her reference, which outlines the water mitigation process in detail. At that time, she did not sign the work authorizations for ServiceMaster to start the water mitigation process.
  On January 15, 2025, the customer decided to sign work authorizations for the water mitigation. *** revisited the Water Recovery Guide with Ms. *************** reconfirm the water mitigation scope of work and address any questions. Before starting, Ms. ******* asked *** to review with her the insurance repair estimate that her insurance adjuster sent to her. *** walked Ms. ******* through the the insurance adjuster's repair estimate to ensure full transparency about the water mitigation process verse the reconstruction process.
  The water mitigation plan addressed the significant water damage and included:
  Asbestos Testing: Required due to the homes construction date (1979) to ensure safe demolition practices.
  Removal of Damaged Materials: This included carpet, pad, tack strips, baseboards, drywall, and insulation.
  Antimicrobial Treatments: Applied due to Category 2 (gray water) classification, reducing the risk of bacterial growth.
  Placement of Drying Equipment: Air movers and dehumidifiers were strategically installed to efficiently restore the structure to normal moisture levels.

  
  At the conclusion of water mitigation, Ms. ******************* concerns about specific framing areas, particularly the sill plate. *** coordinated with on-call managers ***** and ****, who inspected the framing and confirmed that no microbial growth was visible. However, they noted that the sill plate showed signs of preexisting damage of wood rot or dry rot. The photos provided by the the ******* validate the preexisting sill plate wood rot or dry rot. Regardless, to restore the customer's peace of mind we agreed to install a 6-mil plastic barrier over the wood rot / dry rot framing for added protection. Ms. ******************* that **** stated there was mold present; however, **** is adamant he did not make any statements to the customer regarding mold. Again, the adjuster indicated that the sill plate wood rot or dry rot would be handled by their construction contractor. 

  
  Ms. Rickles also expressed concerns about delays in receiving an invoice or estimate. As previously discussed with Ms. ******************* the start of water mitigation, the water mitigation estimate would be submitted to ***************** for review and approval. Once the estimate was reviewed and approved, ServiceMaster would promptly provide Ms. ***************** the finalized water estimate. ********************* carrier has reviewed the documentation and the work performed by ServiceMaster. The insurance carrier has validated our charges as necessary, legitimate and meeting industry standard and the estimate has now been approved by Farmers. The ServiceMaster Claims Administrator emailed a copy of the approved water mitigation estimate to the Ms. *************** 01/30/2025.  
  

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/31/2025

  Complaint: 22839202
  
  I have reviewed the business' response and am rejecting it because:

  ************************* never approved any work estimates or proposals and never verified any completion of any of the work ServiceMaster claims was done. ServiceMaster  has no detailed, contractual agreement with Farmers or myself. *** ******* emailed an estimate to Farmers. Farmers hired him to inspect the property. 
  

  I approved payment for content manipulation, carpet removal and a two foot drywall cut  No cleaning was completed. Workers removed drying equipment after awakening me on a Saturday morning  They shoved their way into my home and attempted to coerce me into signing documents. The work was not completely finished as I listed above.

  ServiceMaster must produce the contract they claim to have with Farmers. A written agreement and photo evidence of the work is necessary proof. Statements quoted here have no legal validity. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/31/2025

  The attached email from ServiceMaster was sent to me on Jan. 30, 2025. Please note that the information is and ESTIMATE for work that was not completed. 
  

  The estimate was sent to Farmers on Jan. 30, 2025. The document is a description and nothing else. It is not a contract with any person or company. The claims otherwise are insurance fraud. They a very simple attempts to defraud Farmers Insurance.