In our experience, waterproofing a deck in San Diego can initially appear successful because of our generally mild weather. In our case, however, two unusually heavy storms revealed serious problems with Medrano's work.
After a lengthy dispute-resolution process involving Medrano's attorney, while we represented ourselves, Medrano ultimately agreed to remove and replace both of our decks at no fault of theirs, and at no cost to us. It was established that the original installation did not meet the required fire-rating specifications and had several defects, including missing fire blocking, water intrusion, and a drain pipe that was not connected -- despite many emails from Medrano stating that the installation met the manufacturer's specifications. The manufacturer had to step in and agree it didn't meet their standard, therefore would not be covered under their warranty. The manufacturer was amazingly supportive throughout this entire process, and their product is among the best in the industry.
The second installation was a vast improvement, but it still had deficiencies. Medrano again disputed that every issue was a deficiency. The California State License Board became involved and formally cited Medrano for failure to build to industry standards. That citation is a matter of public record.
Medrano stated by email that it would perform no more additional work, and left their bonding company and insurance company having to ensure completion and pay for damages caused to the unit below.
I would also caution customers to be very careful with change orders. In our case, Medrano attempted to require us to agree to all change orders, including things such as internal painting, before they would complete any of the change-order work. These communications are documented in writing. Also note that fire-rated decking requires fire blocking, not structural blocking, or the use of tongue-and-groove plywood.
Based on our experience, we would not recommend Medrano for deck waterproofing work.
In our experience, Medrano's most troubling issue was not the defective work but the repeated refusal to take responsibility for it until outside pressure became necessary. If they respond to this review, I would encourage readers to compare their response with the documented facts, including the CSLB citation and the written communications regarding the unresolved work. read more