ComplaintsforWolfpack Construction LLC

• Initial Complaint

  05/17/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Wolf pack construction was hired 8/15/2022 because of a water main leak that flooded the house that was left to me and my sister after our mothers passing. WolfPack construction initial estimate was more than twice as much as the field adjusters for slide insurance my insurance company that’s handling the claim. Slides initial estimate was approx. $44,000 for the put back and Wolfpack construction was at $88000 for the put back and $14,000 for water and $14,00 for mold remediation. Wolfpack never called slide insurance to find out the limits on the policy. Wolfpack was asked and agreed to go to the house for inspection after hurricane Nicole and Ian hit Orlando, Fl. I was informed everything was fine. Wolfpack had access to the house via a key that was in a lockbox on the side of the house. Wolfpack and a **** representative went to the house to asses the damage after the hurricanes and Wolfpack informed me everything was fine***** declined to do any work because they said I was not home at the time of the hurricane. Wolfpack re-entered my home after the inspection to complete the repiping of the house.Wolfpack left plastic covering 4 to 5 feet down the walls and all of the ventilation covered with blue tape from 8/15/2022 until this current day and because the plastic and tape where left up through two hurricanes and there was no blower or anything to dry up the moisture it caused an additional $46,000 of mold damage to my house. Wolfpack said it was our fault that we did not have the electricity and ac on which is not true. I have had the power on at my house from 8/2022 until this current day. Because of wolfpacks neglect we have incurred enormous out pocket expense to live elsewhere.

  

  Business response

  05/31/2023

  Wolfpack Construction, LLC (“Wolfpack”) is in receipt of the BBB complaint filed by ****** **** on May 17, 2023. Wolfpack vehemently denies any wrongdoing on the **** project as set forth below.
  
  Mr. **** and his sister own the property located at **** ******* ****** ****** ******** ** ***** *(Property”). On or around August 17, 2022, Mr. **** was contacted by a neighbor that there was a water leak on the Property, as it was vacant at this time. Per Mr. ****, the Property had no water until roughly a week prior when Mr. ****’s sister activated the water service for the Property. Mr. **** contacted Wolfpack because of this water leak and asked that they start work immediately to prevent any further damage. As such, Mr **** and Wolfpack entered into a Work Authorization and Emergency Work Authorization to perform re-piping, remediation, and build back work. Wolfpack quickly began work and discovered that the leak was caused by a broken pipe. At the time, Wolfpack informed Mr. **** that most insurance policies would not cover any re-piping work and that if he would like that done, he would need to pay directly for those services if his insurance was not going to cover the work. Mr. **** agreed to pay directly for those costs in the event his insurance would not cover the work. Mr. **** claims in his complaint that Wolfpack’s initial estimate was twice as much as his insurance company’s estimate, but he fails to take into account that the insurance would not cover the repiping work and the additional scopes that the Mr ****’s insurance (“Slide”) did not account for in their initial estimate.  
  
  Wolfpack is using widely accepted industry standard estimating methods to quote the work. Wolfpack has been in constant communication with Slide in order to work a mutually agreeable price for the work, contrary to what Mr. **** stated in his complaint. As such, Wolfpack and Slide did come to an agreement on the remediation services of which Slide did issue two checks (Check # ********** and Check # **********) with ****** **** and Wolfpack names on it, however, as of May 31st, 2023 Wolfpack has still not be paid for the remediation services.
  
  Wolfpack stopped the leaking water and performed the remediation work almost immediately. As a part of the services, Wolfpack hired an independent third party to perform a post remediation verification report. As the report showed, that all conditions of the house had been restored to condition 1 level. The collected samples (air and swap) are reviewed under direct microscopic examination by an independent American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) member laboratory. In layman’s terms, this means that the house has passed the inspection and is free from any harmful or unusual levels of mold and other bacteria.
  
  After the clearance, Wolfpack was ordering material and was going to begin work on the build back, but work could not be started because there was now new mold in the house. Wolfpack communicated this issue with Mr **** and informed him build back work could not be started until returned back to condition 1 levels. Due to Mr **** direct and indirect actions mold has grown. To our knowledge, the house is still currently exposed to exterior conditions, causing even more mold to grow.
  
  Mr. **** claims that he has experienced $46,000 of mold damage to his house, but provides no evidence of this amount, let alone any evidence that Wolfpack would be liable for this alleged mold damage. Further, he claims that he has experienced “enormous out [of] pocket expense to live elsewhere,” but this house is not his primary residence. Mr. **** repetitively told Wolfpack that the house was vacant and that he wanted to remodel in order to sell the house. In fact, this house was under contract to be listed on the market from the time Wolfpack was hired. His primary residence is in Tampa as evidenced by his business licenses. From conversations between Mr. **** and Wolfpack he has not lived in the home and does not intend to.
  
  Wolfpack and its representatives have made numerous attempts to reach Mr. **** in order to move forward with the work, but none of our calls, emails or certified letters have been returned. Wolfpack contacted Mr. **** again on May 30th in order to request documentation of any claim he believes he has against Wolfpack in order to propose a mutually agreeable resolution; however, Mr. **** elected not to provide the requested information. Wolfpack was only made aware of any such issue by this BBB complaint. No such information was ever provided, including but not limited to, reports, estimates, photos, lab tests, etc. Wolfpack is more than willing to resolve this matter amicably. Late afternoon on May 31st, Mr and Mrs **** contacted Wolfpack Construction in attempt to resolve this matter. 

  Customer response

  06/03/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  The response provided by Wolfpack is unacceptable.  Many of the details are inaccurate and they conveniently failed to mention receiving an $21,000 payment for services rendered. Documentation of their damages was provided through this complaint and Wolfpack received information.  We have records of responding to calls and text from Wolpack as recent as 5/31/23.   Due to their continuous patterns of willful deceit, unethical practices, and gross negligence, this issue is best addressed through litigation.  Wolfpack failed to remediate the damages they caused. Their main goal is to prey on homeowners to drain all funds received by the insurance company before they perform most of the work.  This will create a situation where the homeowner is trapped and forced to accept whatever condition and additional fees charged.  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ****

*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. ↩