In review of the notes on the audit that was completed, it was indicated that both [redacted] of the company and his wife informed the auditor that the primary duties of [redacted] were sales in nature In addition to this, both indicated that time was also spent in the field and that he was involved in direct supervision of employees on the job site This activity requires [redacted] to be classified the same as the insulation crew This classification is also consistent with the prior year audit The prior year audit was completed by a different auditor who was told that [redacted] did initial assessment, proposals, oversees crews, direct supervision, and gets the jobs started in the morning Based on two auditors being provided with the same information, we believe the audits have been processed correctly
This will address the Revdex.com item filed by [redacted] for the above captioned claimMr [redacted] alleges that he injured his tooth due to a foreign object in his food which occurred at the insured’s restaurant located in [redacted] ***According to our [redacted] , the injury was first reported to them on 1/13/and an incident report was completed The first notice to Acuity Inswas on 1/20/Contact was made with both the insured and Mr [redacted] the same dayMr [redacted] declined to provide his social security number so a Social Security Request Form was sent to him on 1/20/per the Medicare guidelines The first bill for $was received on 2/6/and payment was issued the same dayThe second bill of $was received and paid on 2/9/Mr [redacted] sent an email on 2/9/stating his treatment had been completed and that he wished to settle his injury claimI responded with an email on 2/13/(Friday) advising him that I would be in contact on 2/16/(Monday) to discuss settlement
Acuity is not recognizing the fact that they are capable of making mistakes with regards to how I use my time They have acknowledged in the response below that they made a mistake about the type of the materials that we use and correctly they are adjusting this to reflect the truth They conducted an audit and it was during this audit that they mis-categorized our materials It was during this same audit that they assumed that my role had changed from being primarily sales and administration to doing field work Again, this is incorrect I did not do field work during this period I had communicated to the auditor that we had just purchased a foam machine September of (after the annual insurance period being audited) and that I was planning to be hands on with it I suspect that he misunderstood this to mean that I was hands on with the business during the disputed insurance period He made a mistake with the materialshe also made a mistake with my activities.I put on over 22,miles on my personal vehicle during this period visiting with clientsI have hundreds of proposal and assessments that were done in this period If Acuity would closely look at our 1099's and payroll data they should be able to see that there were no sales people under subcontractor statusThere were also no sales people on payroll A simple analysis would show that with increasing sales, someone has to be pulling the business inWith my pulling in the business and all the other assorted activities, there would be no time to be doing attic field work as they asserted as the justification for increasing the insurance basis by $28, They are simply incorrect and are not willing to accept the fact that they have made multiple mistakes here.Attached is the letter Acuity wrote justifying the $28,increase they put on our payroll In this explanation they state that my roll shifted from Sales and Consulting to be 'more heavily involved in insulation work'This is incorrect and someone with some sensibility should be able to see that.Acuity also claims that in the prior 7/12-7/13 period the audits were consistent with the 7/13-7/periodIf that is the case then why did they not increase the insurance basis in 7/12-7/by the $28,as they had done last year? The insurance premium based on payroll for the 7/12-7/period was about $less then in the 7/13-7/period Acuity had incorrectly billed us $for the 7/12-7/periodThey recognized there mistake after the audit and cut us a check for $ The premium in 7/13-7/was based on the previous annual period and we paid this amount of $in full It was then that the provided us with another $bill which we vehemently dispute.Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
*** ***
In review of the notes on the audit that was completed, it
was indicated that both [redacted] of the company and his wife informed the
auditor that the primary duties of [redacted] were sales in nature. In addition to this, both indicated that time
was also spent in the field and...
that he was involved in direct supervision of
employees on the job site. This activity
requires [redacted] to be classified the same as the insulation crew. This classification is also consistent with
the prior year audit. The prior year
audit was completed by a different auditor who was told that [redacted] did
initial assessment, proposals, oversees crews, direct supervision, and gets the
jobs started in the morning. Based on
two auditors being provided with the same information, we believe the audits
have been processed correctly.
This will address the Revdex.com item filed by [redacted] for the above captioned claim. Mr. [redacted] alleges that he injured his tooth due to a foreign object in his food which occurred at the insured’s restaurant located in [redacted]. According to our [redacted], the injury was first...
reported to them on 1/13/2015 and an incident report was completed.
The first notice to Acuity Ins. was on 1/20/2015. Contact was made with both the insured and Mr. [redacted] the same day. Mr. [redacted] declined to provide his social security number so a Social Security Request Form was sent to him on 1/20/2015 per the Medicare guidelines.
The first bill for $143.90 was received on 2/6/2015 and payment was issued the same day. The second bill of $86.35 was received and paid on 2/9/2015. Mr. [redacted] sent an email on 2/9/2015 stating his treatment had been completed and that he wished to settle his injury claim. I responded with an email on 2/13/2015 (Friday) advising him that I would be in contact on 2/16/2015 (Monday) to discuss settlement.
The classifications are assigned based on the information
provided at the time of the audit. On
the first completed audit, the managing member of the LLC wrote the following
on the mail form provided for the audit for the job duties of the managing
member: “Managerial, QA, customer & business partner relations”. There is no mention of direct supervision of
employees or field work. The next audit
was a physical audit and the auditor was told the following for the managing
members work duties: “He does initial assessment proposals, oversees
crew/direct supervision, gets the jobs started in the morning”. On the last audit, the following was provided
for the managing members work duties: “Sales, direct supervision, insulation”. It is clear that the managing member is
involved in sales work, we are not disputing that. The direct supervision and any insulation
work would require the managing member to be classified the same as the field
crew regardless of how much sales work is done.
This does reflect a change from the first audit and the information
provided for that audit.
On the audit for the period of 7-8-13 to 7-8-14, the auditor
has noted that there were some independent contractors who worked a short time
at the beginning of the period that were involved in sales activities. The amount reported was very small and the
auditor was told that they were not committed to the company and the managing
member could do a better job than these persons. The auditor was also told that there were no
subcontractors hired. We can review any
disbursement journal, general ledger report, or 1099 report you would like to
provide for this audit period regarding the subcontractors that are said to be
used that were not originally reported.
The audit for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 term was estimated due to
lack of cooperation in meeting with the auditor. Numerous attempts were made to complete the
audit with the audit being closed by the auditor after they were told by the
wife of the managing member that the managing member was busy with a crew on
the scheduled date and would not be available.
By the time this audit was completed and information provided, the
7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy was within a few weeks of expiring, therefore the
7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy could not have been adjusted based on the exposures
from the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 audit. We have
reviewed the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 exposures and found the originally estimated
amount still being used; we will revise the audit accordingly. This revision will eliminate any outstanding
balance and a refund check will be mailed.
The policy for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 covered general
liability and commercial inland marine.
The initial premium for this policy was $4,513. When the audit was completed, a refund check
was sent in the amount of $1,460. The
refund is based on the difference between the estimated exposures and the
actual exposures determined at the time of the audit. Previous years that generated additional
premium were the result of actual exposures exceeding estimated exposures, not
“mistakes” made by either party. The
premium for the 7-8-13 / 7-8-14 period were based on the estimated exposures
provided for that period. The premium
for this period was $4,781 when issued.
The bill that followed was from the audit as actual exposures exceeded
the estimated exposures.
*
In review of the notes on the audit that was completed, it was indicated that both [redacted] of the company and his wife informed the auditor that the primary duties of [redacted] were sales in nature In addition to this, both indicated that time was also spent in the field and that he was involved in direct supervision of employees on the job site This activity requires [redacted] to be classified the same as the insulation crew This classification is also consistent with the prior year audit The prior year audit was completed by a different auditor who was told that [redacted] did initial assessment, proposals, oversees crews, direct supervision, and gets the jobs started in the morning Based on two auditors being provided with the same information, we believe the audits have been processed correctly
This will address the Revdex.com item filed by [redacted] for the above captioned claimMr [redacted] alleges that he injured his tooth due to a foreign object in his food which occurred at the insured’s restaurant located in [redacted] ***According to our [redacted] , the injury was first reported to them on 1/13/and an incident report was completed The first notice to Acuity Inswas on 1/20/Contact was made with both the insured and Mr [redacted] the same dayMr [redacted] declined to provide his social security number so a Social Security Request Form was sent to him on 1/20/per the Medicare guidelines The first bill for $was received on 2/6/and payment was issued the same dayThe second bill of $was received and paid on 2/9/Mr [redacted] sent an email on 2/9/stating his treatment had been completed and that he wished to settle his injury claimI responded with an email on 2/13/(Friday) advising him that I would be in contact on 2/16/(Monday) to discuss settlement
Acuity is not recognizing the fact that they are capable of making mistakes with regards to how I use my time They have acknowledged in the response below that they made a mistake about the type of the materials that we use and correctly they are adjusting this to reflect the truth They conducted an audit and it was during this audit that they mis-categorized our materials It was during this same audit that they assumed that my role had changed from being primarily sales and administration to doing field work Again, this is incorrect I did not do field work during this period I had communicated to the auditor that we had just purchased a foam machine September of (after the annual insurance period being audited) and that I was planning to be hands on with it I suspect that he misunderstood this to mean that I was hands on with the business during the disputed insurance period He made a mistake with the materialshe also made a mistake with my activities.I put on over 22,miles on my personal vehicle during this period visiting with clientsI have hundreds of proposal and assessments that were done in this period If Acuity would closely look at our 1099's and payroll data they should be able to see that there were no sales people under subcontractor statusThere were also no sales people on payroll A simple analysis would show that with increasing sales, someone has to be pulling the business inWith my pulling in the business and all the other assorted activities, there would be no time to be doing attic field work as they asserted as the justification for increasing the insurance basis by $28, They are simply incorrect and are not willing to accept the fact that they have made multiple mistakes here.Attached is the letter Acuity wrote justifying the $28,increase they put on our payroll In this explanation they state that my roll shifted from Sales and Consulting to be 'more heavily involved in insulation work'This is incorrect and someone with some sensibility should be able to see that.Acuity also claims that in the prior 7/12-7/13 period the audits were consistent with the 7/13-7/periodIf that is the case then why did they not increase the insurance basis in 7/12-7/by the $28,as they had done last year? The insurance premium based on payroll for the 7/12-7/period was about $less then in the 7/13-7/period Acuity had incorrectly billed us $for the 7/12-7/periodThey recognized there mistake after the audit and cut us a check for $ The premium in 7/13-7/was based on the previous annual period and we paid this amount of $in full It was then that the provided us with another $bill which we vehemently dispute.Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
*** ***
In review of the notes on the audit that was completed, it
was indicated that both [redacted] of the company and his wife informed the
auditor that the primary duties of [redacted] were sales in nature. In addition to this, both indicated that time
was also spent in the field and...
that he was involved in direct supervision of
employees on the job site. This activity
requires [redacted] to be classified the same as the insulation crew. This classification is also consistent with
the prior year audit. The prior year
audit was completed by a different auditor who was told that [redacted] did
initial assessment, proposals, oversees crews, direct supervision, and gets the
jobs started in the morning. Based on
two auditors being provided with the same information, we believe the audits
have been processed correctly.
This will address the Revdex.com item filed by [redacted] for the above captioned claim. Mr. [redacted] alleges that he injured his tooth due to a foreign object in his food which occurred at the insured’s restaurant located in [redacted]. According to our [redacted], the injury was first...
reported to them on 1/13/2015 and an incident report was completed.
The first notice to Acuity Ins. was on 1/20/2015. Contact was made with both the insured and Mr. [redacted] the same day. Mr. [redacted] declined to provide his social security number so a Social Security Request Form was sent to him on 1/20/2015 per the Medicare guidelines.
The first bill for $143.90 was received on 2/6/2015 and payment was issued the same day. The second bill of $86.35 was received and paid on 2/9/2015. Mr. [redacted] sent an email on 2/9/2015 stating his treatment had been completed and that he wished to settle his injury claim. I responded with an email on 2/13/2015 (Friday) advising him that I would be in contact on 2/16/2015 (Monday) to discuss settlement.
The classifications are assigned based on the information
provided at the time of the audit. On
the first completed audit, the managing member of the LLC wrote the following
on the mail form provided for the audit for the job duties of the managing
member: “Managerial, QA, customer & business partner relations”. There is no mention of direct supervision of
employees or field work. The next audit
was a physical audit and the auditor was told the following for the managing
members work duties: “He does initial assessment proposals, oversees
crew/direct supervision, gets the jobs started in the morning”. On the last audit, the following was provided
for the managing members work duties: “Sales, direct supervision, insulation”. It is clear that the managing member is
involved in sales work, we are not disputing that. The direct supervision and any insulation
work would require the managing member to be classified the same as the field
crew regardless of how much sales work is done.
This does reflect a change from the first audit and the information
provided for that audit.
On the audit for the period of 7-8-13 to 7-8-14, the auditor
has noted that there were some independent contractors who worked a short time
at the beginning of the period that were involved in sales activities. The amount reported was very small and the
auditor was told that they were not committed to the company and the managing
member could do a better job than these persons. The auditor was also told that there were no
subcontractors hired. We can review any
disbursement journal, general ledger report, or 1099 report you would like to
provide for this audit period regarding the subcontractors that are said to be
used that were not originally reported.
The audit for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 term was estimated due to
lack of cooperation in meeting with the auditor. Numerous attempts were made to complete the
audit with the audit being closed by the auditor after they were told by the
wife of the managing member that the managing member was busy with a crew on
the scheduled date and would not be available.
By the time this audit was completed and information provided, the
7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy was within a few weeks of expiring, therefore the
7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy could not have been adjusted based on the exposures
from the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 audit. We have
reviewed the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 exposures and found the originally estimated
amount still being used; we will revise the audit accordingly. This revision will eliminate any outstanding
balance and a refund check will be mailed.
The policy for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 covered general
liability and commercial inland marine.
The initial premium for this policy was $4,513. When the audit was completed, a refund check
was sent in the amount of $1,460. The
refund is based on the difference between the estimated exposures and the
actual exposures determined at the time of the audit. Previous years that generated additional
premium were the result of actual exposures exceeding estimated exposures, not
“mistakes” made by either party. The
premium for the 7-8-13 / 7-8-14 period were based on the estimated exposures
provided for that period. The premium
for this period was $4,781 when issued.
The bill that followed was from the audit as actual exposures exceeded
the estimated exposures.
*