Defective NanaWall Glass and Poor Customer Support: A Cautionary Tale

In a highly concerning email from Zac Lerma, Central Installation Manager, the customer is essentially blamed for the recurring issues with the NanaWall glass panels despite multiple replacements. The email opens with a defensive tone, as Lerma claims the company has “never charged for any return trips or replacement materials” and has spent over “$25,000” in “good faith” to replace the defective glass panels. Despite this significant investment, the company refused to address further complaints, alleging that the customer’s cleaning company is responsible for damaging the panels.

Zac Lerma asserts that the glass was scratch-free upon installation and implies the customer’s cleaning crew should be held accountable, suggesting the client “back charge the cleaning company.” Lerma concludes by stating that the company will no longer replace the glass and shifts responsibility to the customer.

This email serves as an example of how product warranties and customer service can fail after significant time and financial investment in a high-end product. The dismissive attitude towards continued customer complaints, the refusal to take further action, and the implied blame on external factors like the cleaning company reflect a lack of accountability. Customers dealing with premium products like NanaWall expect high-quality support, especially when dealing with expensive and defective materials, but this response falls far short of that standard.

This is a clear breakdown of the poor handling of a repeated issue, useful for anyone experiencing or researching similar challenges with warranties and customer service on high-end products.

Zac Lerma’s email demonstrates a dismissive and accusatory tone that reflects poorly on both his professionalism and the broader corporate culture at NanaWall. Instead of addressing the customer’s concerns with empathy and a commitment to quality, the response is defensive, shifting blame to the customer and their cleaning company.

The repeated emphasis on the company’s financial burden and refusal to replace the defective glass conveys a lack of accountability and a focus on avoiding future costs rather than resolving ongoing customer issues.

This type of response suggests a corporate culture more interested in minimizing liability than providing the superior service and product support expected with such a high-end, expensive product.