Here’s a very interesting claim I thought you’d enjoy hearing because it’s so convoluted that it will make you feel like you’re on a Merry-Go-Round. The claim is for excessive wear and dark soil lines. The carpet was looked at by three different inspectors, each hired by one of the involved parties; the manufacturer, the builder and the cushion manufacturer. The carpet is installed over a rebond cushion which admittedly has failed and having done so is being blamed for the excessive wear. The cushion manufacturer has admitted liability for the failure of its product and agreed to replace it but they deny any responsibility for the failure of the cushion causing the complaint for wear on the carpet. The carpet manufacturer disagrees with this report stating most of the wear is in areas where the cushion has failed and lack of support is a known contributor to carpet wear – that is correct. A good cushion aids in carpet performance and minimizes wear and a bad cushion does just the opposite.
The builders inspector, who actually did an excellent job, stated correctly that the dark lines are air filtration soiling but he states that this is a natural condition caused by return air restriction and effective insulation and not the builders fault. Actually, the air flow is not being restricted; it is finding the path of least resistance. This is a problem with the home and the HVAC system and is the builders fault. The system must be balanced and the air flow restricted to keep it from affecting the carpet. The rest of the inspectors report, relative to the wear issue, is right on the money. He invokes the manufacturers warranty for wear, quoted in his report, and he did a very thorough inspection revealing the cause; yarn ply separation. He underlined the parts of the warranty that justify the claim; he also used the CRI Field Evaluation Reference Scale for wear and appearance loss which grades the carpet. This product got a very low mark and it holds up the complaint. The product was found to be defective.
The manufacturer’s inspector says the soiling is the fault of the home and that there is no carpet wear. The builders inspector says the soiling is not the fault of the home but the failure of the carpet to perform is the result of the carpet being defective and the cushion failing. The cushion manufacturer’s inspector says the cushion has failed but it has not contributed to the wear of the carpet. All three find the party that hired them not responsible for what they actually are responsible for. Here we have problems that are being reported as not being the fault of the party actually responsible and then being responded to by the responsible party as not being their fault. Bottom line: consumer up the creek without a paddle. They have a very legitimate claim with failures being caused by the builder, the manufacturer and the cushion manufacturer that none will admit to, other than the cushion guys, who will replace the cushion but claim no liability for the carpet wear complaint.
Here you have a situation that has been proven to be legitimate claims by inspectors other than the ones hired by the party hiring them for the part of the claim they are actually responsible for, allowing the responsible party to deny responsibility – got it. What a colossal run around. The best part of this is that the carpet manufacturers own warranties and the industry’s own standard, developed by the carpet manufacturers, proves the carpet is defect and justifies the claim and replacement but the complaint is denied because the wrong inspector correctly determined where the blame lies, so it isn’t a claim –right?
This is one of the most messed up and frustrating complaints I’ve ever seen. Nice going guys, hang the customer out to dry and you wonder why business is off and people are buying wood. I’ll quote it again: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Author: Lewis G. Migliore
LGM and Associates – The Floorcovering Experts