Wright USA

The Revdex.com's letter regarding the complaint referenced above was received in our office on April 24, Immediately after the receipt of this correspondence, Wright's management team undertook a thorough review of the policyholder's
contention regarding the alleged poor level of customer assistance provided through the loss prevention services {LPS) facility It should be noted these services are offered via a third party vendor
Before articulating the result of our review, a little background is in orderWright USA specializes in the provision of insurance offerings to employees of the Federal Government
Our flagship product is Professional Liability- coverage designed to protect policyholders in the event they become the subject of a criminal, civil, or administrative action resulting from alleged errors committed while performing their job dutiesWe provide an advocacy defense
in the event of a claim; the policy includes an indemnity element to cover settlements and awards {up to the limit of liability)Wright has been offering this valuable insurance since
There are two key provisions to Wright's Professional Liability product that must be emphasized hereFirst,the policy can only respond if there has actually been an allegation of misconduct brought against the insuredNo defense can be afforded in the absence of any such claimSecond, the coverage is not intended to support the insured's pursuit of legal action against a third party
Wright's investigation into the matter revealed that during the period in question- April 3, through April 18, 2014- the LPS facility communicated (via phone or e-mail) with the complainant on five separate occasionsDuring this same timeframe, the individual also had multiple exchanges with both members of the agency staff and insurance company personnel
The complainant was concerned about a possible job reassignment ,prompting her to contact WrightThe policy was unable to respond, as no evidence could be provided to support her contention that the transfer was a punitive/retaliatory action (which- depending on circumstances- would have been covered under the terms of the insurance plan purchased by the complainant) Responses to the inquiries directed to the loss prevention services provider also proved to be unsatisfactory to the complainant, as she sought advice on pursuing a legal action against her employer
Every effort was made to reach an equitable solution for our policyholderSince the LPS provider was unable to resolve the matter to the complainant's satisfaction, the insurance carrier offered to provide up to one hour's worth of consultation from one of its panel counsel membersThis offer was subsequently withdrawn when the complainant deemed one hour to be insufficientWith all other avenues exhausted, the Wright management team decided to refund the cost associated with the loss prevention hotline back to the policyholderThis refund covered both the current and previous policy terms- despite the fact that the complainant availed herself of the hotline in
A check in the amount of $was sent to the complainant on April
Based on the facts reviewed during the course of our investigation, we have concluded that both the agency and loss prevention hotline provider acted appropriately in their dealings with the complainantIt was our refusal to supply legal consultative assistance falling outside of the scope of the policy/hotline intent that prompted this complaint- not poor customer service
We should also note here that Wright and its insurance carrier partner continue to provide legal representation on behalf of the complainant on an unrelated administrative matter

We have had the opportunity to evaluate the complainant's comments contained in your letter of May 8, 2014. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond.
The facts presented in the complainant's rebuttal do not alter our view that both Wright and its loss prevention services provider acted appropriately in its dealings with our customer. We wish to emphasize three key points articulated in Wright's initial communication to the Revdex.com:
1. The complainant sought assistance to initiate pre-emptive legal action against a third party (her employer). These services fall outside the scope of the policy/hotline intent.
2. Every effort was made to reach an equitable solution for our policyholder. This included an offer from the insurance carrier to receive legal counsel from a knowledgeable attorney- at no cost to the complainant.
3. When it became evident that Wright could not resolve the matter to the complainant's satisfaction, a refund for the cost associated with the loss prevention hotline was made.
There was one comment made by the complainant that does warrant further response. In your letter, the individual states "...this policy is essentially worthless and provides no meaningful assistance or protection". Our records show the complainant has been a customer of Wright since 2012. Over that time, she has remitted $584 in premium to us (inclusive of the $100 already refunded).
By the complainant's own admission, she availed herself of the loss prevention services hotline in 2013. In the absence of any negative commentary regarding her experience, we can only assume the policyholder was satisfied with the outcome. Records maintained by our provider indicate 2.0 hours' worth of an attorney's time was spent dealing with this particular matter.
In 2013, the complainant was named in an unrelated administrative action. Wright and its insurance carrier partner continue to provide legal representation on the individual's behalf. The cost of adjudicating this claim is expected to be approximately $10,000.
Comments made by the complainant regarding the value of the insurance policy purchased through Wright are not supported by these facts
In closing, we would ask the Revdex.com to be very circumspect in their publication of statements made by the complainant.  Wright has been careful to respond to the Bureau's inquiries in a dispassionate, objective manner. We have followed your protocols by not disclosing any information that could personally identify the complainant. She has evidently chosen not to follow the same rules of conduct; as a consequence the agency's management is concerned about the disparaging and potentially libelous comments made about specific individuals within our team. We trust the Bureau will take the steps necessary to protect the professional reputation of Wright's employees and vendor staff

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Reasons for rejecting Wright USA’s response include their continued nonresponse to various emails and questions, including this entire email chain, which includes key statements that
(a) if the consult subject were claim-eligible, then it would be covered as claim (with the firm with which I was requesting consultation because of deficiencies with the "loss prevention" "attorneys";
(b) consults weren't this restrictive the last time that I needed one,
(c) the consultation service seemed to be an offering that Wright USA wanted to make impossible to use,
(d) [redacted] had not advised me this time that the subject was not consult-eligible, and
(e) Wright USA had expressed no actual interest or concerns about deficiences I had previously reported about its "loss prevention" "attorneys" (even as lip service).
[redacted]r’s response also falsely states that I intended to take legal action against employer.  I was simply seeking legal consultation to understand my rights and advice on how to respond to ongoing developments.  Similar requests had not been previously denied by Wright USA, which then didn’t respond to written concerns that their loss prevention attorneys were incompetent and untruthful. 
Refund of only $100 is insufficient – this policy is essentially worthless and provides no meaningful assistance or protection, only aggravation because [redacted]r and Wright USA have made it impossible to use in real time of need.
 
[redacted]
I need to add that the requested remedy, unless provided immediately, will likely be insufficient -- in light of the speed/extent of proposed changes affecting my career.  It's unfortunate that I still have not been able to obtain legal consultation for which I had pre-paid, almost one month after initially contacting Wright USA, which continues to refuse to respond to multiple questions and emails.

 
[redacted]
Subject: FW: Your complaint has been received
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:04:00 +0000
I had filed a followup complaint (below) against Wright USA reporting a different issue and seeking a different remedy (below).  I was advised that this was not properly processed by Revdex.com and that I should resubmit information to this email address.  I hope that Revdex.com will publicly post this complaint so that prospective policy purchasers can understand the lack of protections, communication, and timeliness that they can expect from Wright USA. 
When I had previously used the "loss prevention" service covered by my policy, I informed Wright USA (in writing) that I the "attorney" did not provide his name, did not want to engage in written communication, reported greater expenditures of time than were actually true, and that *I* had to inform *him* (the "attorney") of relevant law.   At that time, Wright USA did not restrict my use of the "loss prevention" service for issues that did not rise to the level of a claim.  Nor did they express meaningful interest in the issues I raised or offer to take any corrective action. 
On April 2, I wrote to Wright USA seeking another "loss prevention consult."  [redacted] was aware of the subject and did not advise me that this would not be covered for consultation.  As she advised, around April 3, I left a message for the loss prevention "attorney" to call me back.  I repeatedly informed her that I was not receiving a response and reminded her of previous issues with the loss prevention "attorney" (above).  [redacted] did not respond to most of these emails. 
On April 12, I requested in writing consult with the Brownell law firm (which handles "claims" and, in my experience, did not demonstrate the above deficiencies in professionalism, knowledge, and truthfulness).  Around this time, I also felt compelled to start to contemporaneously document every phone call that I was making to the unresponsive loss prevention "attorneys."
On April 17, I called the loss prevention "attorney" hoping to set a time to speak -- after he had not responded to my two calls from the previous day.  It was not until this time, two full weeks after I had initially sought assistance, that I started to hear questions/doubts about whether the subject matter was consult-eligible.  I advised him to contact Wright USA for clarification - [redacted] has not responded to my repeated written requests for more information about this. 
On April 21, [redacted]r informed me that consult subject was not being covered by my policy because it "didn't constitute a civil proceeding or claim."  I immediately responded that
(a) if the consult subject were claim-eligible, then it would be covered as claim (with the firm with which I was requesting consultation because of deficiencies with the "loss prevention" "attorneys";
(b) consults weren't this restrictive the last time that I needed one,
(c) the consultation service seemed to be an offering that Wright USA wanted to make impossible to use,
(d) [redacted] had not advised me this time that the subject was not consult-eligible, and
(e) Wright USA had expressed no actual interest or concerns about deficiences I had previously reported about its "loss prevention" "attorneys" (even as lip service). [redacted]r did actually not respond to any of these points.
[redacted]r's response was to offer consultation with the firm I requested -- but only for a one-time one-hour consultation, and with precondition that I had to send them an email agreeing that they would provide no further consultation unless they determined that this would constitute a civil proceeding, claim, or covered under policy.  
I responded that I was concerned about ongoing developments and would likely need more than one-time, one-hour consult.  [redacted]r (and [redacted]) also refused to respond to written direct questions, including whether Nadler and Wright USA think it's satisfactory that it took 2 weeks for me to even speak with a "loss prevention" "attorney" and that he and Wright USA are consistently unresponsive to repeatedly stated concerns.
Remedy sought, in addition to written response to all unanswered emails, is up to 2 hours consult with Brownell firm, which likely charges in 6-minute increments after the first hour. 
Unfortunate that Wright USA is this slow, unresponsive, unconcerned, and miserly when people who've paid hardearned money are urgently concerned about career/livelihood.  Time is of the essence.

While highly touted as a method of "protection" for those of the management or Executive ranks, it turns out that, when service/support is requested, this company is no more supportive nor protective of their clients than your average property insurer. Twice (out of three different situations) I requested guidance and/or representation. The reactive response from Wright USA..., "let us know what happens and we'll go from there... (para)". I don't know how you view your professional career and it's longevity, but I personally prefer to be PROACTIVE, not reactive. On a separate occasion, I was advised that they simply chose not to support the request for representation due to "pre-existing" circumstances. Their blind dismissal of my request, in the face of a high-anxiety, high tension, false-accusation based investigation clarified the corporate directive of Wright USA. Their own documentation clearly states that they will not represent a petitioner, only a defendant. And, given the support they receive from the agency, why would they ever jeopardize their financial livelihood for the benefit of their relatively low-importance, paying clients.
Granted, the agency will subsidize 50% of the annual premium, but be forewarned, my opinion: you're better off finding a prepaid attorney/firm to proactively represent you - with zealousness. Or, file a claim with Wright USA and, upon completion of your premium year, receive the "Notice of Nonrenewal of Insurance" based on, "unfavorable claims experience". Buyer Beware!!! Never again.

Review: I repeatedly informed Wright USA that their "loss prevention" "attorneys" either did not provide their name, did not wish to have any written communication, that I had to advise the "attorney" of relevant/applicable employment laws, that they have made false statements about their responsiveness to my repeated phone calls. Wright USA and Ironshore claims have refused to respond in writing, despite my repeated requests for written responseDesired Settlement: Written response to all unanswered emails and questions.

Business

Response:

The Revdex.com's letter regarding the complaint referenced above was received in our office on April 24,2014. Immediately after the receipt of this correspondence, Wright's management team undertook a thorough review of the policyholder's contention regarding the alleged poor level of customer assistance provided through the loss prevention services {LPS) facility. It should be noted these services are offered via a third party vendor.

Before articulating the result of our review, a little background is in order. Wright USA specializes in the provision of insurance offerings to employees of the Federal Government.

Our flagship product is Professional Liability- coverage designed to protect policyholders in the event they become the subject of a criminal, civil, or administrative action resulting from alleged errors committed while performing their job duties. We provide an advocacy defense

in the event of a claim; the policy includes an indemnity element to cover settlements and awards {up to the limit of liability). Wright has been offering this valuable insurance since 1966.

There are two key provisions to Wright's Professional Liability product that must be emphasized here. First,the policy can only respond if there has actually been an allegation of misconduct brought against the insured. No defense can be afforded in the absence of any such claim. Second, the coverage is not intended to support the insured's pursuit of legal action against a third party.

Wright's investigation into the matter revealed that during the period in question- April 3, 2014 through April 18, 2014- the LPS facility communicated (via phone or e-mail) with the complainant on five separate occasions. During this same timeframe, the individual also had multiple exchanges with both members of the agency staff and insurance company personnel.

The complainant was concerned about a possible job reassignment ,prompting her to contact Wright. The policy was unable to respond, as no evidence could be provided to support her contention that the transfer was a punitive/retaliatory action (which- depending on circumstances- would have been covered under the terms of the insurance plan purchased by the complainant). Responses to the inquiries directed to the loss prevention services provider also proved to be unsatisfactory to the complainant, as she sought advice on pursuing a legal action against her employer.

Every effort was made to reach an equitable solution for our policyholder. Since the LPS provider was unable to resolve the matter to the complainant's satisfaction, the insurance carrier offered to provide up to one hour's worth of consultation from one of its panel counsel members. This offer was subsequently withdrawn when the complainant deemed one hour to be insufficient. With all other avenues exhausted, the Wright management team decided to refund the cost associated with the loss prevention hotline back to the policyholder. This refund covered both the current and previous policy terms- despite the fact that the complainant availed herself of the hotline in 2013.

A check in the amount of $100.00 was sent to the complainant on April 21.

Based on the facts reviewed during the course of our investigation, we have concluded that both the agency and loss prevention hotline provider acted appropriately in their dealings with the complainant. It was our refusal to supply legal consultative assistance falling outside of the scope of the policy/hotline intent that prompted this complaint- not poor customer service.

We should also note here that Wright and its insurance carrier partner continue to provide legal representation on behalf of the complainant on an unrelated administrative matter

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Reasons for rejecting Wright USA’s response include their continued nonresponse to various emails and questions, including this entire email chain, which includes key statements that

(a) if the consult subject were claim-eligible, then it would be covered as claim (with the firm with which I was requesting consultation because of deficiencies with the "loss prevention" "attorneys";

(b) consults weren't this restrictive the last time that I needed one,

(c) the consultation service seemed to be an offering that Wright USA wanted to make impossible to use,

(d) [redacted] had not advised me this time that the subject was not consult-eligible, and

(e) Wright USA had expressed no actual interest or concerns about deficiences I had previously reported about its "loss prevention" "attorneys" (even as lip service).

[redacted]r’s response also falsely states that I intended to take legal action against employer. I was simply seeking legal consultation to understand my rights and advice on how to respond to ongoing developments. Similar requests had not been previously denied by Wright USA, which then didn’t respond to written concerns that their loss prevention attorneys were incompetent and untruthful.

Refund of only $100 is insufficient – this policy is essentially worthless and provides no meaningful assistance or protection, only aggravation because [redacted]r and Wright USA have made it impossible to use in real time of need.

I need to add that the requested remedy, unless provided immediately, will likely be insufficient -- in light of the speed/extent of proposed changes affecting my career. It's unfortunate that I still have not been able to obtain legal consultation for which I had pre-paid, almost one month after initially contacting Wright USA, which continues to refuse to respond to multiple questions and emails.