Home Warranty Company Dispute Demand Letters

Home Warranties vs Homeowners Insurance: What's Actually Covered

Home warranties (also called "home protection plans") are service contracts that cover repair or replacement of major home systems and appliances. They're NOT insurance, and understanding the difference is critical when your claim gets denied.

What Are Home Warranties?

In California, home warranties are regulated as "home protection contracts" by the Department of Insurance under Insurance Code Part 7, Chapter 1. They typically cover:

Major systems: HVAC, electrical, plumbing
Appliances: Refrigerator, dishwasher, oven, washer/dryer
Optional add-ons: Pool equipment, additional refrigerators, septic systems

Key Distinction: Home warranties cover mechanical failures and normal wear-and-tear breakdowns of systems/appliances. Homeowners insurance covers sudden, accidental damage from covered perils (fire, theft, storms). Neither is a substitute for the other.

Comparison Table: Home Warranty vs Homeowners Insurance vs Contractor Warranty

Type	What It Covers	Who Provides It	Typical Cost	Typical Exclusions
Home Warranty	Mechanical failure, breakdowns of systems/appliances from normal wear	Home warranty company (licensed in CA)	$400-$800/year + $75-$125 service call fee	Pre-existing conditions, improper maintenance, code upgrades, cosmetic issues
Homeowners Insurance	Sudden, accidental damage to structure and contents from covered perils	Insurance company	$1,000-$3,000+/year	Flood, earthquake, wear-and-tear, mechanical breakdown
Contractor Warranty	Workmanship defects in new installation/repair work	HVAC, plumbing, electrical contractor	Included with service (typically 1 year)	Owner abuse, improper use, unrelated failures

How Home Warranties Actually Work

You file a claim: Call or submit online service request
Company assigns contractor: Usually from their network; you often can't choose
You pay service call fee: $75-$125 per visit, regardless of repair cost
Contractor diagnoses issue: Reports findings to warranty company
Company approves or denies: Based on contract terms and diagnosis
If approved: Company pays contractor (minus your service fee); you may face limits or "cash-out" offers well below replacement cost

Cash-Out Trap: Many home warranty companies offer "cash-out" settlements instead of actually repairing/replacing the item. These offers are often 50-70% below the actual replacement cost, leaving you to cover the difference. Read your contract to see if you can refuse cash-out and demand actual repair/replacement.

Regulatory Framework in California

Home warranty companies in California must:

Be licensed by the California Department of Insurance
Maintain minimum financial reserves
Provide clear contract disclosures
Follow claim-handling standards similar to insurance companies

California Insurance Code § 12740 and related provisions govern fees, terms, and consumer protections. This means home warranty companies can be held to similar bad-faith and unfair-practices standards as insurers.

Common Reasons Home Warranty Claims Get Denied

Denial Reason → Counter-Evidence Matrix

Denial Reason	What Company Claims	Evidence/Arguments for Your Demand Letter
Pre-Existing Condition	"This failure existed before your coverage started"	Home inspection report from purchase, seller disclosures, prior service records showing system was functional, photos/videos from move-in showing working condition
Improper Maintenance	"You failed to maintain the system per manufacturer requirements"	Service invoices showing regular maintenance (HVAC tune-ups, water heater flushing, etc.), receipts for filters/parts, photos of clean units, manufacturer manual showing you met maintenance schedule
Not Covered Component	"Only the core unit is covered; this ancillary part is excluded"	Contract language analysis (is exclusion clear?), marketing materials showing broader coverage promised, industry standards (is this part essential to system function?)
Cap Reached / Limited Benefit	"We'll pay $500 but replacement costs $2,000"	Contract provisions on "actual replacement" vs caps, ambiguity in contract favors consumer, check if cap was clearly disclosed at sale
Modification / Upgrade Exclusion	"System was modified; not covered"	Show modification was minor/unrelated to failure, or was done by licensed contractor per code, or modification doesn't void entire coverage
Code Compliance / Permit Issues	"Bringing to code is your responsibility, not covered"	Argue failure itself is covered; code upgrades are consequential but shouldn't bar entire claim; check if contract clearly excluded this

The "Pre-Existing Condition" Denial

This is the most common denial tactic. Home warranty companies claim the failure existed before you bought coverage, so it's not covered. This is often used even when there's no evidence of pre-existing issues.

How to Fight It:

Home inspection report: If inspector tested the system and it passed, that's strong evidence it was functional at purchase
Seller disclosures: If seller disclosed no known issues, and you bought warranty at closing, company can't claim it pre-existed without proof
Timeline: If system worked fine for months/years and suddenly failed, burden is on company to prove pre-existing condition
Contractor opinion: Get independent contractor to state failure was sudden, not gradual deterioration

The "Improper Maintenance" Denial

Companies deny claims alleging you didn't maintain the system per manufacturer specs. Often this is asserted with zero evidence.

Defense strategies:

Show you DID maintain it (service records, receipts)
Show the failure is unrelated to maintenance (e.g., compressor failure on 2-year-old AC isn't caused by dirty filters)
Argue contract didn't clearly require specific maintenance or warn of consequences
Point out company never inspected or requested maintenance records before denying

Limited Cash-Out Offers

Instead of repairing/replacing, company offers a fraction of actual cost. Example: HVAC replacement costs $8,000; company offers $1,500 "cash-out."

Know Your Rights: Check your contract's "settlement options" section. Some contracts allow you to refuse cash-out and demand actual repair/replacement. If contract is ambiguous, California law construes ambiguities against the drafter (the warranty company). Demand actual performance of the contract.

How to Read Your Home Warranty Contract and Denial Together

Home warranty contracts are dense, filled with exclusions, and written to favor the company. Here's how to decode yours.

Key Contract Sections to Review

Definitions: How does contract define "breakdown," "pre-existing condition," "proper maintenance"? These definitions control coverage.
Coverage: What systems/appliances are listed? Any sublimits or caps?
Exclusions: This is the longest section. Look for catch-all language like "any condition not resulting from normal wear and tear."
Maintenance requirements: Does contract require specific maintenance? Is it clearly stated or buried in fine print?
Limitations of liability: Caps on payouts, cash-out provisions, repair-vs-replace discretion
Dispute resolution: Arbitration clause? Can you sue? Time limits?

Comparing Denial Letter to Contract Language

When you receive a denial, do this analysis:

Step	What to Do	What to Look For
1. Find cited provision	Denial should cite specific contract section	Does it? If not, denial may be arbitrary
2. Read exact language	Look up the cited section in your contract	Does the exclusion actually apply to your situation?
3. Check definitions	Review how contract defines key terms	Is company using a definition not in the contract?
4. Look for ambiguity	Is the exclusion clear and specific?	Ambiguous language is construed against company (CA law)
5. Compare to marketing	Review brochures, website, agent statements	Did marketing promise broader coverage than contract delivers?

Pro Tip: If the denial letter is vague ("not covered per your contract") without citing specific provisions, that's a red flag. Demand a detailed explanation with specific contract citations. Vague denials are easier to challenge.

Red Flags in Home Warranty Contracts

"Company discretion" language: "We may repair or replace at our discretion" gives company too much power; can lead to lowball cash-outs
Broad exclusions: "Any pre-existing condition" without defining what that means or how it's determined
Onerous maintenance requirements: Requiring annual professional service (expensive) or voiding coverage for missed maintenance
Hidden caps: "$1,500 limit per claim" buried in fine print when marketing suggests full replacement
Short limitations period: "Must file claim within 30 days of failure" when you may not immediately know there's a problem

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Overlap

Some consumer attorneys argue California's Song-Beverly Act (which governs express and implied warranties) applies to home warranty contracts. While courts haven't universally adopted this, elements of Song-Beverly's consumer-protection philosophy inform California's regulation of home protection contracts.

Key points you can raise in a demand letter:

If contract language is deceptive or misleading, it may violate consumer protection statutes
Unconscionable terms (e.g., company pays 10% of actual cost) may be unenforceable
Marketing misrepresentations can support fraud or unfair business practices claims

Sample Home Warranty Demand Letters

Sample 1: Pre-Existing Condition Denial (HVAC System)

[Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State ZIP] [Email] [Phone] [Date] [Home Warranty Company Name] Claims Department [Address] RE: Demand for Coverage – Wrongful Denial Based on "Pre-Existing Condition" Contract Number: [CONTRACT#] Claim Number: [CLAIM#] Property Address: [ADDRESS] Date of Failure: [DATE] Dear Claims Manager: I demand immediate coverage and payment for my HVAC system failure claim, which you wrongfully denied on [DENIAL DATE] by asserting the failure was a "pre-existing condition." This denial is factually unsupported and violates the contract. FACTS I purchased this home warranty contract on [DATE] when I closed on the property at [ADDRESS]. The contract covers HVAC systems, including the central air conditioning unit. On [DATE], the AC unit stopped cooling. I filed a claim on [DATE] (Claim #[NUMBER]). Your contracted technician, [COMPANY NAME], diagnosed a failed compressor. Rather than authorizing repair/replacement per the contract, you denied the claim on [DENIAL DATE], asserting the compressor failure "pre-existed" coverage. YOUR DENIAL HAS NO FACTUAL BASIS 1. **Home Inspection Confirmed Working System** The home inspection conducted on [INSPECTION DATE] (one week before closing) specifically tested the HVAC system. The inspection report states: "Air conditioning system operational; cooling all zones adequately." (Exhibit A: Inspection Report, page [X]). The inspector found no issues with the compressor, refrigerant levels, or cooling capacity. This is objective evidence the system was fully functional immediately before I purchased your warranty. 2. **System Worked Fine for [X] Months After Coverage Began** The AC worked without issue from [COVERAGE START DATE] through [FAILURE DATE]—a period of [X] months. I used it regularly during [summer season], and it cooled the home properly. There were no warning signs, unusual noises, or performance declines. A truly "pre-existing" condition would have manifested immediately or gradually worsened. Sudden failure after months of normal operation is the definition of a breakdown covered by your contract, not a pre-existing condition. 3. **Compressor Failures Are Sudden Events** Your own contractor's report notes the compressor "failed" (past tense, sudden event), not that it was "failing" (ongoing deterioration). Compressor failures typically occur suddenly due to electrical issues, refrigerant problems, or manufacturing defects—not gradual wear that would show symptoms for months. I have attached a letter from an independent HVAC technician, [NAME], who reviewed the system and confirms the failure was sudden and not attributable to any pre-existing defect (Exhibit B). 4. **You Have Provided Zero Evidence** Your denial letter provides no evidence of a pre-existing condition. You didn't inspect the system before issuing the policy. You have no service records showing prior issues. You're simply speculating to avoid paying a valid claim. California law places the burden on YOU to prove a pre-existing condition existed. You haven't met that burden. CONTRACT ANALYSIS The contract defines "pre-existing condition" as "any condition that existed prior to the effective date of this contract." (Contract, Section [X], page [Y]). For a condition to "exist," there must be evidence it was present and observable. A latent defect that hasn't manifested is not a "pre-existing condition"—it's a failure waiting to happen, which is exactly what breakdown coverage is for. Even if some microscopic defect existed in the compressor at the moment of purchase (unknowable and unprovable), that doesn't make it a pre-existing "condition" under the contract. The system was operational and performing as intended when coverage began. CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PROTECTION As a licensed home protection contract provider under California Insurance Code Part 7, you are subject to regulatory oversight by the California Department of Insurance. Your denial practices must be fair, reasonable, and supported by evidence. Denying claims based on unsupported assertions of pre-existing conditions is an unfair claim practice. If this denial is not reversed, I will file a complaint with the Department of Insurance detailing your improper handling of this claim. Additionally, if your marketing materials or sales representations promised "peace of mind" and comprehensive coverage but the reality is routine denials on baseless grounds, that constitutes potential misrepresentation and unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200. DEMAND I demand that you: 1. Immediately withdraw your denial and authorize full repair or replacement of the HVAC compressor per the contract 2. Pay for the repair/replacement (estimated at $[AMOUNT] per independent bid, Exhibit C) 3. Reimburse my service call fee of $[AMOUNT] 4. Confirm coverage in writing within 15 days If you do not respond with approval within 15 days, I will pursue all available remedies, including: - Filing a complaint with the California Department of Insurance - Pursuing litigation for breach of contract and bad faith - Seeking damages including the cost of repair, consequential damages (alternative cooling costs, lodging if home becomes uninhabitable), emotional distress, and attorney's fees I purchased this warranty specifically to avoid the financial burden of major system failures. You accepted my premiums. Now honor the contract. Please contact me at [PHONE] or [EMAIL] within 15 days. Sincerely, [Your Signature] [Your Printed Name] Enclosures: Exhibit A: Home Inspection Report Exhibit B: Independent HVAC Technician Letter Exhibit C: Repair/Replacement Estimate

Sample 2: Improper Maintenance Denial (Water Heater)

[Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State ZIP] [Email] [Phone] [Date] [Home Warranty Company Name] Claims Department [Address] RE: Appeal of Denial – Water Heater Claim Improperly Denied for "Lack of Maintenance" Contract Number: [CONTRACT#] Claim Number: [CLAIM#] Date of Failure: [DATE] Dear Claims Manager: I appeal your denial of my water heater replacement claim dated [DENIAL DATE]. You denied the claim alleging "improper maintenance" without any factual basis. This denial violates the contract and California consumer protection standards. FACTS On [DATE], my water heater failed, flooding the garage with [X] gallons of water. I immediately filed a claim. Your technician diagnosed a failed tank (internal corrosion causing rupture) and recommended replacement. Instead of authorizing replacement per the contract, you denied the claim on [DENIAL DATE], asserting I "failed to properly maintain the unit by not flushing it annually." YOUR DENIAL IS BASELESS 1. **Contract Does Not Require Annual Flushing** I have reviewed the contract cover-to-cover. Nowhere does it state that annual water heater flushing is required. The "Maintenance Requirements" section (page [X]) states only: "You are responsible for maintaining covered items in good working order per manufacturer recommendations." That's it. No specific requirement for flushing, no warning that failure to flush voids coverage, no disclosure that this would be a condition of coverage. 2. **Manufacturer Manual Does Not Require Annual Flushing** I have attached the manufacturer's manual for this water heater (Exhibit A). The maintenance section recommends—but does not require—flushing "periodically" to extend tank life. It does not state a specific interval (e.g., annually) or warn that failure to flush causes tank failure. Moreover, the manual is clear that tank failures can occur even with perfect maintenance due to water chemistry, anode rod depletion, and manufacturing defects. 3. **I Did Maintain the Unit** I had the water heater serviced by a licensed plumber on [DATE], approximately [X] months before failure (Exhibit B: Service Invoice). The plumber inspected the unit, checked the pressure relief valve, and found it in good working order. While I did not specifically "flush" the tank during that service call, the unit was professionally inspected and deemed functional. That constitutes reasonable maintenance. 4. **Lack of Flushing Did Not Cause the Failure** Your technician's report states the tank failed due to "internal corrosion." Internal tank corrosion is a normal wear-and-tear issue that occurs over time regardless of flushing. Flushing removes sediment buildup (which can reduce efficiency) but does not prevent corrosion of the tank lining. I have obtained a letter from an independent plumber (Exhibit C) who states: "Tank failures due to internal corrosion are common in water heaters [AGE] years old and are not caused by lack of flushing. Flushing extends tank life marginally but does not prevent inevitable corrosion." In short, even if I had flushed the tank annually, it would have failed anyway. Your denial is based on a red herring. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION Your contract covers "breakdown" of water heaters. A tank rupture after [X] years of service is the textbook definition of a breakdown covered by a home warranty. Your maintenance exclusion states: "We do not cover failures resulting from your failure to maintain the unit." (Contract, Section [Y]). To invoke this exclusion, you must prove: 1. I failed to maintain the unit, AND 2. That failure CAUSED the breakdown You have proven neither. You have no evidence I failed to maintain the unit (I had it professionally serviced). And your own technician's report shows internal corrosion—an inevitable wear issue unrelated to flushing. UNFAIR CLAIM PRACTICES As a licensed home protection contract provider in California, you are subject to the same unfair claims practices standards as insurance companies. Denying a claim based on a maintenance requirement that: - Is not clearly stated in the contract, - Is not actually required by the manufacturer, and - Did not cause the failure ...constitutes unreasonable and unfair claim handling. I will file a complaint with the California Department of Insurance if this denial is not reversed. DEMAND I demand that you: 1. Reverse your denial and authorize replacement of the water heater 2. Pay for replacement (estimated at $[AMOUNT] per Exhibit D: Replacement Estimate) 3. Reimburse my service call fee of $[AMOUNT] 4. Reimburse water damage mitigation costs incurred due to the rupture: $[AMOUNT] (Exhibit E: Invoices for cleanup, drying, damaged items) Total demand: $[TOTAL] If I do not receive approval within 15 days, I will pursue litigation for breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair business practices, seeking full damages, consequential damages, and attorney's fees. Please contact me at [PHONE] or [EMAIL]. Sincerely, [Your Signature] [Your Printed Name] Enclosures: Exhibit A: Manufacturer Manual Exhibit B: Plumber Service Invoice ([DATE]) Exhibit C: Independent Plumber Letter Exhibit D: Replacement Estimate Exhibit E: Water Damage Mitigation Invoices

Sample 3: Limited Cash-Out Offer (Refrigerator Replacement)

[Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State ZIP] [Email] [Phone] [Date] [Home Warranty Company Name] Claims Department [Address] RE: Rejection of Inadequate Cash-Out Offer – Demand for Actual Replacement Contract Number: [CONTRACT#] Claim Number: [CLAIM#] Failed Appliance: [BRAND/MODEL] Refrigerator Dear Claims Manager: I am rejecting your inadequate "cash-out" offer of $[AMOUNT] for my refrigerator replacement claim and demanding that you perform the contract by providing actual repair or replacement as promised. FACTS My refrigerator failed on [DATE]. I filed a claim, paid the $[SERVICE FEE], and your technician diagnosed a failed compressor. The technician stated the unit is not repairable and requires replacement. On [DATE], instead of authorizing replacement, you sent a letter offering a "cash-out settlement" of $[AMOUNT]. This is less than half the cost of an equivalent replacement refrigerator, which costs approximately $[ACTUAL COST] (Exhibit A: Retail pricing for comparable models). I REJECT THE CASH-OUT AND DEMAND ACTUAL REPLACEMENT 1. **The Contract Promises Repair or Replacement, Not Partial Cash Payments** The contract states: "If a covered item fails, we will repair or replace it." (Contract, Section [X], page [Y]) It does NOT say "we will give you a fraction of the replacement cost and leave you to cover the rest." The contract promises actual performance: a working refrigerator. 2. **The "Cash-Out Option" Section Is Ambiguous** Your contract includes a section titled "Settlement Options" that mentions cash-out as an option "in certain circumstances." It does not clearly state: - When you can unilaterally impose a cash-out instead of replacement - How cash-out amounts are calculated - Whether I have the right to refuse cash-out and demand replacement Under California law, ambiguous contract terms are construed against the drafter (you). If it's unclear whether you can force a cash-out, the ambiguity is resolved in my favor: I'm entitled to actual replacement. 3. **Your Cash-Out Is Unconscionably Low** Offering $[AMOUNT] for a refrigerator that costs $[ACTUAL COST] to replace is unconscionable. You're attempting to shift 60% of the replacement cost onto me—despite the fact that I paid for coverage precisely to avoid this burden. If every "replacement" claim is settled for 40 cents on the dollar, your contract is illusory. You collect premiums promising "peace of mind" but deliver financial hardship. 4. **Marketing and Sales Representations Promised Actual Replacement** Your marketing materials state: "When a covered appliance fails, we'll repair or replace it so you can get back to normal." (Exhibit B: Website screenshot / brochure) There is no disclosure in the marketing that "replacement" actually means "a check for half the cost." This is misrepresentation. CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PROTECTION Home protection contracts in California are regulated by the Department of Insurance. Your practices must be fair and transparent. Systematically offering lowball cash-outs instead of honoring the promise of actual replacement is an unfair business practice under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and potentially violates Insurance Code standards for home protection contracts. I will file a complaint with the Department of Insurance if you do not provide actual replacement. DEMAND I demand that you: 1. Withdraw the cash-out offer 2. Authorize and pay for an actual replacement refrigerator of like kind and quality (approximately $[ACTUAL COST]) 3. Arrange for delivery and installation (or provide a specific authorized retailer where I can select a replacement) Alternatively, if you insist on a cash-out, the amount must be the FULL replacement cost: $[ACTUAL COST], not a discounted amount that leaves me holding the bag. If I do not receive approval for actual replacement (or full-cost cash-out) within 15 days, I will: - Purchase a replacement refrigerator and sue you for the full cost - Seek additional damages including spoiled food loss ($[AMOUNT], Exhibit C: Receipts for food disposed of) - Pursue bad faith and unfair business practices claims - Seek attorney's fees and costs I fulfilled my obligations by paying premiums and the service fee. Now you fulfill yours by honoring the contract. Please contact me at [PHONE] or [EMAIL] within 15 days. Sincerely, [Your Signature] [Your Printed Name] Enclosures: Exhibit A: Replacement Refrigerator Pricing (comparable models) Exhibit B: Marketing Materials / Website Screenshots Exhibit C: Receipts for Spoiled Food

When a Home Warranty Denial Becomes a Consumer-Fraud Issue

Home warranty denials often cross the line from contract disputes into consumer fraud and unfair business practices. Here's when and how to escalate.

Consumer Protection Laws That Apply

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition Law): Prohibits unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices
Insurance Code Part 7 (Home Protection Contracts): Regulates home warranty companies and imposes licensing, reserve, and conduct requirements
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: While primarily for product warranties, some principles apply to service contracts
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA): Prohibits deceptive practices in consumer transactions

When to File a Regulatory Complaint

File a complaint with the California Department of Insurance if:

Company routinely denies claims based on vague or unsupported reasons
Denial letter lacks specific contract citations or evidence
Company's marketing promised broader coverage than contract delivers
Company refuses to respond to your appeal or demand letter
Cash-out offers are consistently far below actual replacement costs

How to File: Visit insurance.ca.gov and file an online complaint. Include: - Your contract number - Claim denial letter - Your appeal/demand letter - Evidence supporting your claim (inspection reports, service records, etc.) - Summary of why the denial is improper The Department can investigate, mediate, and potentially sanction the company.

Red Flags for Fraud or Unfair Practices

Red Flag	What It Suggests	Legal Theory
Marketing promises "comprehensive coverage" but contract is riddled with exclusions	Bait-and-switch	Fraudulent misrepresentation, UCL § 17200
Salesperson or realtor promised coverage verbally that contract doesn't provide	Oral misrepresentation	Fraud, breach of implied covenant
Contract uses confusing or contradictory language about coverage	Designed to mislead consumers	Unconscionability, UCL
Company denies claims without investigation	Bad faith	Breach of implied covenant of good faith, unfair practices
Systematic low-ball cash-outs	Illusory promise	Breach of contract, UCL

Damages Beyond Contract Benefits

If you can prove fraud, bad faith, or unfair practices, you may recover:

Actual damages: Cost to repair/replace the item
Consequential damages: Hotel costs if home uninhabitable, spoiled food, rental appliances
Rescission and restitution: Cancel contract and get all premiums back
Punitive damages: If conduct was malicious or oppressive
Attorney's fees: Available under UCL and consumer protection statutes

Attorney Services for Home Warranty Disputes

Most home warranty disputes involve amounts that make legal representation worthwhile, especially when bad faith or unfair practices are involved. I help homeowners fight wrongful denials and recover what they're owed.

Why Hire an Attorney?

Contract interpretation expertise: Home warranty contracts are complex and filled with traps; I know how to parse the language
Regulatory leverage: Threatening (and following through on) Department of Insurance complaints gets companies' attention
Discovery power: In litigation, I can obtain the company's internal claim files, denial statistics, and training materials showing patterns of unfair denials
Bad faith exposure: Companies fear bad faith and UCL claims; attorney involvement raises the stakes
Attorney fee recovery: Many consumer protection statutes allow fee-shifting, making representation affordable

My Approach

Contract and denial review: I analyze your contract, denial letter, and evidence to identify company errors
Pre-litigation demand: I send a detailed legal demand letter highlighting contract violations, bad faith, and regulatory issues
Regulatory complaint: I file or assist with Department of Insurance complaints to create regulatory pressure
Negotiation: Most cases settle once I'm involved; companies don't want attorney fee exposure
Litigation if needed: I file suit for breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair business practices

What It Costs

Contingency fee: I take a percentage of recovery (typically 33-40%); no fee if no recovery
Hybrid: Reduced hourly rate plus success fee
Costs advanced: I typically advance litigation costs (filing fees, expert fees) and recover them from the company

Because attorney fees are recoverable under California consumer protection laws, representation is often cost-effective even for mid-size claims ($5,000-$20,000).

Submit Your Case for Review

If your home warranty claim has been wrongfully denied, I can help. Send me your denial letter, contract, and supporting evidence for a case review.

Serving California homeowners. Contingency fees available. I fight for full replacement, not lowball cash-outs.

Additional Resources

California Department of Insurance: insurance.ca.gov/home-protection
File a complaint: insurance.ca.gov (online complaint portal)
Better Business Bureau: Check company's complaint history