Simmons Mattress - second mattress that has failed in 3 years - Warranty not honored as it should

Complaints.com received the following consumer message on December 10, 2002:

From: John Steck [johnsteck AT hotmail.com]

RE: Simmons Mattress - second mattress that has failed in 3 years - Warranty not honored as it should

Based on my personal experience, their 10 year Warrantee is selectively subjective and their products do not hold up under normal use.

For us, buying a Simmons mattress was a waste of good money as we will now have to replace it at OUR cost within three years of normal use. I have no faith in ANY replacement mattress Simmons may offer as restitution seeing as this is the SECOND Simmons mattress that has failed in 3 consecutive years of normal use. I sincerely doubt we will ever be refunded our money, so I expect I will have to retain legal console to recoup my expenses. It is my expressed opinion that Simmons Company knowingly expresses a bad faith warrantee with no real worth, and knowingly participates in false advertising regarding the fitness of their products. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. There will not be a third. I want my money back. Sincerely,

John Steck

>>>The following complaint was submitted to BBB.org on 11/18/2002

>>>3:25:16

>>>PM: COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION INFORMATION:

Simmons Company

Consumer Services1900 Beaver Ridge Circl

Norcross, GA United States 30071

(770)512-7700

www.simmons.com

COMPLAINT INFORMATION:

Complaint #: 871320

Complaint Type: General Complaint (not a car maker)

Date Received: 11/18/2002

Primary Complaint Classification: Guarantee or Warranty Issues Secondary Complaint Classification: Product Quality

Complaint:

The original mattress purchased sagged prematurely. Simmons contacted, inspected, and replaced with comparable model. Replacement mattress again sagged prematurely. Simmons contacted, inspected, and denied replacement due to a default clause in the 10yr warrantee. The default clause sited is in regard to a water stain 6" from the top edge of the mattress in the middle of the bed. This stain is nowhere near the failure areas of the mattress in question. The primary users of the mattress are 215lbs and 250lbs

respectively. Sagging problem is noted on both sides of the primary sleep areas. Restitution sought is refund of money spent. A replacement mattress will be purchased from another company that makes a more robust product. There is no faith in any replacement product Simmons may offer. Desired Settlement: Refund

Settlement Explanation: Refund to buy a more robust mattress from another

company.

Customer Service Rep: Ms. Rosher

Product or Service: Mattress

Model Number: 1st = BR W.C Opal Plush; 2nd = BR Felicity Pillow Top Disputed Amount: 1398.51 Purchase Date: 1/21/1999 1st Problem Date: 9/18/2000 Complaint Dates: 9/18/2000, 11/7/2000 2nd Problem Date: 8/10/2002 The bureau that will handle your complaint is:

BBB of Metropolitan Atlanta

P.O. Box 161447

Atlanta, GA 30321

Phone: (404)766-0875

Fax: (404)768 -1085

Email: complaints AT atlanta.bbb.org

WWW: http://www.atlanta.bbb.org >>>My complaint was processed and a hard copy reply was given from

>>>Simmons.

>>>The following is my response to the BBB complaint reply: -----Original Message-----

From: John Steck

Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:23 AM

To: 'complaints AT atlanta.bbb.org'

Subject: Ms. Alan Scott - Simmons Company #6033270 Dear Ms. Ann Scott,

Upon review of the response from Jeannine Rider of Simmons Company regarding our complaint we must dispute this issue as being resolved. The items specifically disputed are: 1) The Simmons Company's selective re-wording of our complaint in legal terms that gives them escape from their expressed warrantee. Our complaint on 08/07/02 was regarding SUPPORT FAILURE of the mattress in question, not concern over "body impressions". Their inspection of body impressions was done without load against the padded upholstered pillow top. It did not appropriately gage the noted and obvious support failure of the springs under the pillow top in the primary sleeping areas. We agree with Simmons Company's claim that the body impressions noted are normal, but that condition is irrelevant to the failure in question. The inspection provided by Simmons Company was inappropriate to the claim. 2) The Simons Company "soiled" clause is a bad faith legal escape built into their expressed warrantee that allows them to subjectively and selectively honor or deny responsibility. The water stain in question is not anywhere near the areas of support failure and is irrelevant to the claim of SUPPORT FAILURE. Their concern over the "health condition" of this water stain is also irrelevant to the claim. By law they are prohibited from reselling any used mattress, a fact Simmons Company volunteered when the first failed

mattress was replaced. Simmons Company cited this same health concern for why they refused to haul the original failed mattress away. It was made to be our responsibility to dispose of it. Given those facts, we fail to see how a soiled condition nowhere near point of failure is relevant to their counter claim of warrantee breach. We regard the inclusion of this wording in the warrantee and it's application against our claim to escape clear liability as BAD FAITH by the Simmons Company. We still seek fair resolution of this matter. What we paid for and what Simmons Company provided as merchandise and warrantee is not equitable. Given this is our SECOND mattress from Simmons Company with the same SUPPORT FAILURE, we have little confidence in any replacement product that might be

offered by Simmons Company as restitution. We seek an amortized refund of the money spent for the original mattress set. We do not regard our claim as trivial and are prepared to retain legal assistance if an equitable resolution can not be reached directly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to reply to this email address if further information is needed. Sincerely,

John Steck

Comment On This

I agree with the consumer- I had a similar problem-posted many places on this and soon to be many more sites.

I am only one person sleeping in the bed- 135lbs. The method used for inspection without weight in the bed is bogus. Shame on Simmons for this horrific quality and for its avoidance of a major problem. My first mattress was 2400 and the replacement with the same problems was 350.00 more! WHAT A RAQUET!