Claim Detail

While inspecting the roof I noticed ripples in the roof membrane around the pancake vent. The manufacturer doesn't use the adhesion promoter that they're supposed to use so I was able to peel the sealant up with my finger and they also did not hit the predrilled hole so the vent cracked and allowed water to get in and damage at least two sheets of decking. The whole roof needs replacement and one of the solar plugs is cracked.

partial-match • confidence 0.63

While inspecting the roof I noticed ripples in the roof membrane around the pancake vent. The manufacturer doesn't use the adhesion promoter that they're supposed to use so I was able to peel the sealant up with my finger and they also did not hit the predrilled hole so the vent cracked and allowed water to get in and damage at least two sheets of decking. The whole roof needs replacement and one of the solar plugs is cracked.

partial-match • confidence 0.50

I replaced the vent so the damage doesn't get worse. REQ: 1 HOURS OF

partial-match • confidence 0.43

processor • Oct 14, 2025, 1:51 PM

PA 903784 has been submitted for approval.

processor • Oct 15, 2025, 5:33 PM

@Kaitlyn R @Matt F Job 1: denied falls under same labor code as Job 2. Job 2: approved for 26 hours (requested 33) Job 3: approved for 4 hours Replacement of solar plugs - approved for 0.6 hour Total requested: 38 hours Total approved: 30.6 hours Let me know if you accept this. I added the solar plug on a separate line to get more time, which 0.6 isn't a lot but I knew they would just leave it at the minimum if I kept it in Job 1 or 2.

processor • Oct 16, 2025, 9:07 AM

@Chris B Tagging you in this one as it's another roof repair that GD isn't willing to pay the requested amount. I can prepare and send a letter, just let me know.

dealer_or_external • Oct 16, 2025, 9:46 AM

@Alix M I WILL DISCUSS THIS ONE WITH MATT WHEN HE RETURNS ON FRIDAY. HOWEVER, I DO FOR SURE WANT THE LABOR FOR LINE 1. WE ULTIMATELY HAVE TO DO THAT REPAIR TWICE (ONCE SO THAT THE CUSTOMER CAN USE THEIR UNIT IN THE MEANTIME, AND THEN AGAIN WHEN WE REPLACE THE ROOF).

processor • Oct 16, 2025, 9:48 AM

Sounds good. I can go back and ask for that right now.

processor • Oct 16, 2025, 9:51 AM

Let me know on the rest. I will keep you posted on Job 1.

processor • Oct 22, 2025, 4:20 PM

@Kaitlyn R Job 1 was approved for 0.3 hour flat rate. Any update on the rest after talking with Matt?

processor • Oct 23, 2025, 12:49 PM

@Matt F This is one they have approved for 30.9 hours total for the whole WO. 0.3 hours for Job 1 (replacement of the vent) 26 hours to R&R membrane 4 hours to R&R 2 sheets of decking 0.6 hour to R&R solar plug.

dealer_or_external • Oct 23, 2025, 1:31 PM

I sent this to Dan @ GD referencing both claims... still waiting for a response. I wanted to follow up on claim 887109, as well as an additional claim for VIN 573TE2629P3435247, regarding reimbursement discrepancies. From what I can see, iClaims has been submitting both of these claims using our standard retail structure based on the RVDA flat rate guide and our 30% parts markup, but the approved amounts coming back from Grand Design are still falling short of those figures. iClaims has been advocating for full reimbursement and referencing Wisconsin’s statutory requirements, so this appears to be more of a disconnect between their submission process and how Grand Design’s system is interpreting those submissions than any intentional decision at your level. As you know, Wisconsin Act 164 (Assembly Bill 230) requires manufacturers to reimburse dealers for warranty labor at the same rates charged to retail customers and parts at a 30% markup. For labor, that means using the RVDA flat rate guide, which is what we base all retail repairs on. We fully understand that Grand Design’s internal flat-rate structure and parts pricing model may differ from the RVDA standard. However, in Wisconsin, those internal guidelines don’t supersede the retail-equivalency requirement under the law. Our goal here isn’t to make this adversarial—we truly appreciate Grand Design’s partnership and everything your team does to support dealers—but we do want to make sure claims are processed in full compliance with state standards. If it would help, I’m happy to jump on a quick call with you and/or iClaims to clarify exactly what’s needed from our side to keep these aligned going forward. Thank you as always for your time and support, Dan. I appreciate you looking into this and helping us maintain the fair and transparent partnership we’ve always valued with Grand Design.

dealer_or_external • Oct 24, 2025, 2:09 PM

@Alix M @Matt F @Chris B I JUST SPOKE TO THE CUSTOMER TO UPDATE THEM.. THE CUSTOMER HAS NOW REQUESTED THAT WE INQUIRE IF THEY ROOF CAN BE REPLACED AT GRAND DESIGNS FACILITY AS THEY LIVE IN IT AND SPEND TIME DOWN IN INDIANA WERE IT WOULD BENEFIT THEM BY HAVING IT DONE THERE.

processor • Oct 24, 2025, 2:53 PM

I have reached out to Grand Design.

processor • Oct 24, 2025, 4:23 PM

Kaitlyn Reinwand Matt Ferkey Chris Balderrama from GD: Alix, Our service center does not typically do roof replacements if the dealership can do the repairs. They focus mainly on frame, sidewall and body shop repairs. The customer can call in and speak to a retail service manager and see what they would do for the customer since they are full time in the unit. Thank you and have good weekend, Sonya Gallagher

dealer_or_external • Oct 24, 2025, 5:01 PM

@Alix M @Chris B @Kaitlyn R We are very capable of doing the roof repairs in a timely manner. The concern comes with the amount of time it takes to get an authorization for a reasonable amount of time. We would MUCH prefer to keep this work in house as we have more control over the customer experience.

processor • Oct 24, 2025, 10:20 PM

@Alix M - Send a demand letter. Copy all of us on it please. Thank you.

processor • Oct 27, 2025, 12:40 PM

Letter sent.

processor • Oct 27, 2025, 4:24 PM

Sounds good. Did you copy us? I don’t see it.

processor • Oct 27, 2025, 5:49 PM

Chris Balderrama yes, and Sonya just responded too. I will add her response in the morning but she said times will stand as they are Grand Designs flat rates.

processor • Oct 28, 2025, 9:04 AM

@Chris B yes, and Sonya just responded too. Adding her response now. "I sent to my manager, and we have approved per Grand Design Flat Rate, and the times will stand."

processor • Oct 29, 2025, 8:50 AM

@Matt F @Kaitlyn R @Chris B yes, and Sonya just responded too. Adding her response now. "I sent to my manager, and we have approved per Grand Design Flat Rate, and the times will stand."

processor • Nov 12, 2025, 1:10 PM

@Chris B @Matt F Just following up on this. Let me know if you need anything from me. I added the last response I got from Sonya above.

processor • Nov 19, 2025, 9:49 PM

Make sure this is also in the non compliance

processor • Dec 16, 2025, 8:44 AM

@Matt F @Chris B Am I good to move this to PA approved?

dealer_or_external • Dec 16, 2025, 10:24 AM

@Alix M @Kaitlyn R Kaitlyn was working with the customer on this one - If I recall there were some scheduling concerns. I would like kaitlyn to weigh in when she is able.

processor • Dec 16, 2025, 10:52 AM

Sounds good. Thank you! I will leave where this is until Kaitlyn is back in office.

dealer_or_external • Dec 18, 2025, 10:20 AM

@Alix M I am still working with the customer on bringing it in to us to have the roof replaced. It is currently looking like they will be in Wisconsin sometime in January. Trying to solidify with them.

processor • Jan 28, 2026, 8:55 AM

@Kaitlyn R Do you have any update on this one? Thank you!

dealer_or_external • Feb 5, 2026, 3:17 PM

@Alix M NOT AS OF YET. I HAVEN'T ORDERED ANY PARTS EITHER. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS CUSTOMER ISNT SURE HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PROCEED AS FAR AS IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THE REPAIR OR IF A DIFFERENT DEALERSHIP IS.

dealer_or_external • Apr 6, 2026, 3:44 PM

@Alix M wE ARE GOING TO CLOSE OUT THIS WORK ORDER. CMR WILL NOT GIVE US ANSWER ON HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED. iT IS DOCUMENTED WITH THE MANUFACTURER NOW AND IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED WE WILL DO THE WORK, BUT IF THEY CHOSE A DIFFERENT COMPANY OR WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE, ITS NOTED ALREADY WITH MANU

processor • Apr 6, 2026, 5:48 PM

@Alix M This one :)

processor • Apr 7, 2026, 8:55 AM

@Michelle A @Chris B I will move this one to write off since the customer is not coming in for the repairs.

dealer_or_external • Apr 7, 2026, 9:31 AM

@Alix M THANK YOU!

processor • Oct 20, 2026, 12:19 AM

TESTING AND LEARNING — GRE 8220 / Write Off / WO 12939, Grand Design PA 903784, 2023 Imagine XLS 22MLE. WHY PAYMENT DID NOT MATERIALIZE: This was not simply an unpaid $5,404 labor request. The native Dropbox discussion documents that Grand Design ultimately allowed 30.9 total roof-related labor hours (0.3 vent, 26 membrane, 4 decking and 0.6 solar plug), versus the 38 hours listed across initial repair requests; the separate demand letter requests 38.6 hours at $140/hour. Grand Design stood by its flat-rate schedule after an October 2025 demand. Later the dealer discussed customer scheduling, and the April 7 Dropbox update moved WO 12939 to Write Off because the customer was NOT returning for the repairs. The available WO shows $0 actually billed and does not establish completion of membrane/deck replacement or paid/denied claims. WHAT COULD HAVE PRODUCED PAYMENT: Obtain a firm customer appointment while PA approval remains usable, preserve/renew any required authorization, prove the covered failure and actual completed repair lines, cross-reference WO_12874-labeled photos to this VIN, clock reasonable actual technician time, then submit each payable repair line promptly. If Grand Design's allowance is unreasonable for work actually performed, substantiate a Wisconsin Stat. 218.164 labor-time/rate appeal with time punches, published allowance and proof of warranty coverage. Separately verify whether the documented interim vent replacement itself qualified for a timely 0.3-hour claim. RECOVERY LIMIT: The $5,404 demand is not proven loss; unperformed roof work is not reimbursable as completed warranty service. Resolve the differing approval figures in the actual PA, the customer's nonreturn, and the absence of a manufacturer remittance/AR write-off before assigning recoverable dollars. Internal learning/quality check, NOT final legal adjudication. @Chris B @Heidi H @Tricia H

processor • Oct 23, 2026, 11:26 AM

TESTING AND LEARNING - Greeneway GRE 8220 | Grand Design Monday meeting | RO 12939 / PA 903784 Reviewed both documents and all 12 photos individually. The RO documents a cracked pancake vent, water-intrusion concern and replacement of the vent to prevent further damage. It requests 1 hour for that operation, 33 for the roof and 4 for decking. The letter instead requests 38.6 hours: reconcile that 0.6-hour difference before presenting a supplement. Evidence item to resolve: every photo filename identifies WO 12874, while this RO is 12939 / VIN 573TE2629P3435247. The images show membrane rippling, lifted sealant, fractured vent components, a split solar-connector collar and local exposed discolored substrate. They do not independently identify this VIN or establish two full sheets of damage. Confirm the relationship between the two work orders before attributing those photos to this unit; no source files should be renamed or altered. This RO has zero billed warranty quantities/hours and no final roof-replacement invoice in the selected packet. The letter's 38.6 hours/$5,404 is a request, not a verified unpaid balance. Proposed Monday resolution: confirm actual repair/completion status, current authorization and any payment; validate the photo-to-VIN link; separate completed mitigation from planned roof/decking work; and agree a reasonable task-based allowance with a named claims owner. Supply the dated signed final RO, actual time/parts/freight and repair evidence for any completed work before stating the amount due. Learning: preserve the original evidence and maintain an explicit work-order/VIN cross-reference, a reconciled labor request, and before/during/after repair proof. Greeneway should receive fair consideration for documented necessary work, with the evidence linked clearly enough for Grand Design to approve it. @Chris B @Matt F