AAA American Air Conditioning and Heating

A response was sent to Ms Hill 4/3/2014 from Travelers Spokane Business Center as follows:
"Thank you for your recent inquiry to Travelers through the
Better...

Business Bureau.  We appreciate
the opportunity to address your inquiry.
In your correspondence, you noted your dissatisfaction with
the nonrenewal action taken due to your comprehensive loss history and the
absence of contact after each loss.  As
explained in your policy jacket, provided sufficient notice is given, we may
elect not to renew your coverage at the policy anniversary. As industry
statistics have shown that driving records and loss history are predictive of
future claims, our underwriting staff conducts a periodic review of the driving
records and loss history of our policyholders. In your case, based upon the six
comprehensive losses within the last two years, the policy is no longer
eligible for continued coverage with Travelers.  
Our underwriting guidelines and the specifics of our rating
plans are proprietary and confidential. 
We do not share this information with the general public. Additionally,
based upon policy and claim volumes, we would be unable to contact each insured
to discuss the policy implications related to each claim filed.
While I understand and empathize with your disappointment
with our current procedures, I cannot alter the non-renewal your policy. Additionally,
I am unable to remove the comprehensive losses from your Travelers claim record
as requested. Please know that action taken is based on our filed rules and
rates in the state of Arkansas which apply to all policyholders regardless of
the number of years insured with Travelers."

A r*spons* was s*nt to [redacted] on 6/3/2014 from Trav*l*rs M*lvill* Claim C*nt*r, outlining th* fact that th* polic* r*port includ*d his nam* and v*hicl* information, so Trav*l*rs b*li*v*d h* was involv*d in th* loss of 12/16/2013.  Trav*l*rs att*mpt*d contact by phon* and...

mail to obtain a v*rbal stat*m*nt.  sinc* no r*ply was r*c*iv*d from [redacted] Trav*l*rs coll*ctions v*ndor was r*tain*d to assist in th* r*cov*ry of paym*nts mad* on b*half of our insur*d.  during th* r*cov*ry proc*ss, Trav*l*rs r*c*iv*d additional information from [redacted] confirming h* was not involv*d, and th* coll*ctions r*qu*st was clos*d, and a closing l*tt*r was s*nt to [redacted].

A response was sent from Travelers on October 15, 2014 as follows:
Your complaint alleged that you were misled and misinformed
when you called to add your...

daughter as a driver to your policy as well as an
additional vehicle. I hope this letter will clarify the situation and you will some
to understand that in fact, the policy was rated appropriately based on the
circumstances presented to us.
The first critical point to understand is that in the State
of California, a new driver under the age of 18 first obtains a “Provisional
Instruction Permit” – which permits the operator to gain supervised driving
experience in preparation for the subsequent road test. Once the road test is
passed, the operator is issued a “Provisional Driver’s License”. As the name
suggests, this is a “driver’s license”, albeit with restrictions pertaining to
other occupants in the vehicle and night driving.
From an insurance perspective, these are two very distinct
situations. A driver who only holds the “Provisional Instruction Permit” can be
listed on a policy but will not impact rating until such time as he or she
becomes licensed. Meanwhile, an operator who holds a “Provisional Driver’s
License” will impact the premium charged on a policy, as of the date that
person is added.
Applying this to your situation: you called Travelers and
indicated that you wished to add your daughter and a second vehicle to your
policy. We asked for your daughter’s driver’s license number (which would have
confirmed her license status) but you indicated that it was not available. In
lieu of this, you clearly stated that your daughter’s driving privileges were
not limited to that afforded to the holder of a “Provisional Instruction
Permit” and that in fact, she was able to drive unsupervised, subject to
conditions.
Without having the driver’s license number available,
Travelers would have no way to confirm her license status. At the same time, we
would have no reason to question what you told us in the call. Therefore, we
proceeded in the appropriate manner by adding her as a licensed operator and
adding the vehicle as you specifically requested that we do.
The premium that was charged is correct for the situation
presented. In your correspondence to Revdex.com, you indicated that you just found out
that you “cannot insure a learner”. Based on the information you provided in
the call, we did not consider her a “learner” (i.e. holder of a “Provisional
Instruction Permit”) but rather as a driver (holder of a “Provisional Driver’s
License”. If that is inaccurate and she only held the “Provisional Instruction
Permit” for the period from May 27, 2014 – October 6, 2014, you would be
entitled to a premium reduction. In that event, please provide documentation of
her license number to me and I will investigate further and take any
appropriate action.
If she held a “Provisional Driver’s License” during the
period in question, we stand by the amount as charged."

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: this is all lies - they sent me a different letter - I have attached.  My message to them is below - they are liars and I have the proof in my emails from them and the recorded conversations I have had with them.  They have never tried to settle with me - they have been trying to bullying me into taking the least amount of money as possible.sent today:[redacted]
To [redacted]
Today at 8:11 AM
Received your letter of lies.
1- Dr. [redacted] never released me from his care that I was informed of.
2-
Dr. [redacted] never gave me any test of my knee or informed me of any
test.  I was never able to move my knee 100% or 98% percent without him
forcing the knee causing me great pain. 
3- You have never tried to negotiate a fair resolution to this matter.
4-
I have never been informed of the statue of limitations on this matter -
look closely at the email chain and you will discover your stupidity.
5- I will settle for $10,000.00 and that is final since you have not taken care of the my knee and all of the issues around it.
6-
I will forward your letter to the Revdex.com, and the [redacted] of all 3
states with my comments and emails from you that show you are lying.
7- I will continue to post and blog about your worthless company and crappy service till the day I die.
Regards,
[redacted]
Sincerely,
[redacted] [redacted]

A response has been sent to [redacted] 7/15/2014 from Travelers Portland Oregon Claim Center as follows:
"Your dwelling was inspected on June 26, 2014 with your contractor [redacted].  Our inspection revealed that the floor was soft from exposure to water.  As part of our...

investigation we agreed to have [redacted] detach the toilet and pull up the vinyl floor"........he proceeded to do that the next day, photos were then submitted showing extensive water damage(s) to the subfloor, baseboard(s), lower wall(s) and floor covering(s).  "The photos showed evidence of shower, toilet leaks and rot damages. Based on the amount of damages found in this area this is not a recent leak but one that has been ongoing for an extended period of time.  It also appears that both the toilet and shower are leaking possibly due to faulty installation aas the bathroom was remodeled two years ago."    (the letter includes the policy language in section HO-3(11/06)
"Our investigation revealed that the damages you are claiming have occurred over an extended period of time and possibly due to faulty installation.  It also appears that there are two leaks.  The shower and toilet are both leaking.  As the above mentioned exclusion are applicable to the loss the damages do not qualify as a peril insured against.  Thus no policy beneifts are available under the Additional Coverage of Limited "Fungi", Other Microbes Or Rot Remediation.
Our records show we have advised you of the process and coverages on 6/24/14, 6/26/14, 6/30/14, 7/3/14 and 7/8/14.  While no benefits are available for your loss, we have issued payment for damages caused as part of our investigation.  A payment in the amount of $1,143.49 was issued to you on July 3, 2014.  A copy of the estimate has also been previously forwarded to you."

A response was sent to Mr. Banks, via email, April 1, 2014 from Travelers Knoxville TN Business Center as follows:
"Thank you for contacting Travelers Insurance...

Consumer
Affairs through the Revdex.com. I appreciate you taking the time to
share your concerns. I am sorry I was unable to reach you by telephone so I
wanted to follow up the message I left with this brief note.
I welcome the opportunity to talk with you
further regarding your refund. "

A response has been sent to Mr. Crosswhite, 4/16/2014 from Travelers Denver CO Claim Service Center as follows:
"This letter is in response to your
second filing with Revdex.com concerning our response dated March
28, 2014. The Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, hereafter Travelers,
strives to provide the highest level of customer service. We regret that you
are dissatisfied with our liability decision.
As
we stated in our previous letter we are unable to provide liability coverage
for this loss due to a sudden emergency defense. Our Insured, Mr. [redacted]
experienced a heart attack that incapacitated him.  Under Nevada law this is a viable defense
would relieve Mr. [redacted] of any legal labiality for any damages sustained
while he was incapacitated.  Attached is
our first letter in response to your complaint filed with the RevDex.com that also explains this defense and why Mr. [redacted] would not be held
liable for your damages.  
We
remain open to consider any additional information or evidence to the contrary.
If you should need any additional information please let me know. "

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I have reported to Travelers, any circumstances that "prevent work from being finished."  The problem is that I am unwilling to hire any contractor that cannot provide what I had before the loss....cabinets that matched and were made the same quality as before.  YOUR cabinet maker stated to me that he did not quote the cabinet as they were originally built, and that they would NOT be an exact match.  I have quoted the policy to you on the phone and in emails, parts of the policy that apply.  For example, HO-420 states "(1) Replacement cost of that part of the building damaged with material of like kind and quality..."  The cabinets are ONE set, and should be treated as such.  I have talked to many people in the restoration business, insurance, Tennessee Insurance Division, and more...and have not yet found anybody that claims, as you do, that upper and lower cabinets are not of one set, and do not have to match.  First, your excuse was that the upper and lowers didn't have to match.  Once I found clauses in the policy stating that they do, you now claim that cabinets were not a "direct" loss.   .  I also have requested a new adjuster, on the grounds that the one I have now has repeatedly made decisions that would place my family health at risk.  That request was denied, and the complaints have been ignored.  Our adjuster never even saw the house until after the [redacted] was removed.  I called and told the adjuster that ServiceMaster had overbilled for equipment, and was told "let me know what you work out with them."  I don't have time to worry about Traveler's money.  I am busy trying to get my house done.  Our first contents adjuster had told us to get rid of all electronic things in the house, and that smoke gets into them.  The smoke is acidic and eats wires and circuit boards, creating risk of future fires.  Now, even after I requested a new structure adjuster, the contents portion was moved to the structure adjuster.  We now have to wonder if we will get replacement for many of the things the first guy told us to get rid of.I expressed legitimate concerns about the wiring in the house and its exposure to saltwater corrosion.  Once Travelers got a hack-job electrician to say it was ok (WITHOUT DOING AN OHMMETER CHECK), my concerns were ignored.  I complained that the test wasn't done...and nothing happens.  We now have been told to move out of the hotel, yet we have no furniture, appliances, kitchen cabinets, etc.  As for the Proof of Loss, it may be months before settlement, and we don't know how long that will take so we can't estimate how long we will need alternate living expenses.  We cannot order cabinets until we get the amount necessary to get cabinets that are equal to what we had.  Even after ordering, it may take up to 8 weeks to get them.  We have no place to store any replacement items we buy, so we will have to move into an empty house.  We will move into a house where workers are coming in every morning to work, disrupting our lives, getting dust on our beds and anything else we have.  All in all, I feel that travelers has put money savings over the safety of my family.  I feel that my complaining about it is now being retaliated for.  I think the treatment my family has gotten from this company is something more people need to be aware of.  I paid for this coverage and now am being denied what I paid for. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent to Mr. Aluya on March 21, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Service Center as follows:
 
"Thank you for your
recent...

inquiry to Travelers through the Revdex.com.  We appreciate the opportunity to address your
concerns.
In your
correspondence, you have requested we delete your wife, [redacted], as a
driver on the policy effective November 30, 2011.
I have completed a
review of our policy records and find the policy was issued listing you and [redacted]
as drivers on the policy.  We received
the signed Quote Acceptance Package with your signature and [redacted]’s
signature.  We have no records indicating
you have requested [redacted] be deleted as a driver on the policy.   [redacted]
has been listed on the policy as a driver with an International license.
I spoke with your
agent, [redacted] at Effective Coverage, concerning your application process.  [redacted] file reflects your automobile coverage
was previously with [redacted].  [redacted] Farm policy lists both of you on the policy.
Mr. Aluya, on
November 14, 2013 the Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) payment for $177.08 was
returned from your financial institution due your request for stop
payment.  There is an earned premium in
the amount of $12.00 owed on the tenant policy number [redacted]  This policy afforded you coverage through the
cancellation date of November 6, 2013. 
There is an earned premium in the amount of $165.08 owed on the
automobile policy number 9[redacted] for coverage afforded to you through
the cancellation date of November 6, 2013.
We will be unable to
honor your request to back date your change request to remove [redacted] as a
driver on the policy.  I apologize if
there has been any misunderstanding regarding your billing account and I hope
this explanation helps you understand the balance due on the policies."

5-7-1
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
THANKS Revdex.com, YES SINCE TRAVELERS ARE GIVING ME THE CREDITS TWICE OF $32=$64 DUE AS I INITIALLY REQUESTED. I'M SATISFIED.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT FOR TRAVELERS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY BILL IS $752 INITIALLY!
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Please accept my sincere apology for the delay in
handling of your cancellation request and...

for any upset caused by the recent
collections notifications.  I was able to
verify the cancellation date of September 10, 2014 at 12:01am and I have
updated our records accordingly.  I have
also made the necessary adjustments to remove your account from our collections
department. 
 
As we discussed, this debt was not reported to any
credit bureaus and therefore had no impact to your credit.  You can expect to receive a refund in the
amount of $36.58 within the next two weeks.

A response was sent 11/8/2016 detailing the claim and resulted in.....In response to the present claim, any items of “custom equipment” were taken into consideration and the ACV of the...

vehicle was determined to be $14,325.19.  This amount was tendered to the insured on 10/24/2016.

A response was sent to [redacted] on September 4, 2014 from Travelers Pennsylvania Claim Center as follows:
"On or about
June 20,2014 you contacted us to inform us of the problems with your rear
bumper cover which was replaced due to the December 16, 2013 loss.  The problem being...

poor fit and the paint was
peeling.  Around that same time we found
out the repair shop, Prosser’s Auto Body, was going out of business.
Travelers
investigation is now concluded.  We along
with PP&G paint suppliers will be covering the cost of replacing and refinishing
the rear bumper cover with a new OEM cover at no cost to you.
We appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the issues raised in your complaint."

A response was sent to [redacted] May 20, 2014 from Travelers Spokane WA Business Center as follows:
"
Thank you for your recent inquiry to Travelers through...

the
Revdex.com.  We appreciate
the opportunity to address your concerns.
When the policy was issued on March 28, 2014 effective March
27, 2014 a down payment in the amount of $173.36 was debited using the bank account
information provided. An important billing notice was mailed to you on April
11, 2014 indicating that your deductions will be made on the 27th of
every month. The payment taken on April 28, 2014 for $79.78 was for your
homeowners insurance. The payment in question on April 21, 2014 for $48.50 was
a regular monthly deduction for your Automobile policy.
Regarding the inspection, when a policy is issued we
routinely inspect the homes to confirm the dwelling features and to make
certain that the policy limits are sufficient to protect the home in the event
of a total loss.  The report we received
from the company that inspected your home indicated there were conditions of
concern which you have addressed in your letter to us. 
A request for proof of repairs was sent to you on April 23,
2014.  Our Georgia Homeowners eligibility
rules stipulate that a dwelling that includes unrepaired or hazardous
conditions does not qualify for our homeowner program.  Therefore, as indicated in our letter, a
Notice of Cancellation was issued to you advising that this coverage will end
effective June 03, 2014.  
I would encourage you to provide proof of repairs as soon as
possible, if that has not already been completed.  When the documentation has been received we
will review the current status with underwriting to determine eligibility to
continue coverage for your home.
Lastly, you requested in your letter that you receive a full
refund of all premium paid to Travelers; unfortunately we are unable to meet
your request as the premium paid to date is for coverage provided on your
property beginning March 27, 2014 up to the cancellation date of June 03, 2014.
A partial refund of the paid premium in the amount of $43.14 is scheduled to be
returned to you; you should receive the funds within 7-10 business days.
[redacted], I understand you may not be satisfied with this situation; but I hope
that this communication provides an adequate explanation for our underwriting
action.

A response was sent to Travelers Insured [redacted] on 9/9/2014, after a call to her sone [redacted], from Travelers [redacted] Claim Office.
After an extensive conversation with Mr. [redacted] on the...

afternoon of September 9, 2014 and discussed all of the issues he
raised in this complaint. We reached an agreement that we would send a representative
from [redacted] to determine if there were elevated mold levels in the house.
If the report from [redacted] suggests that there are elevated mold levels, and
there is no clear indication of what is causing the issue, then we will at that
time hire an engineer to determine whether the mold levels observed are a
result of a covered cause of loss under your policy. Once the inspection is
completed and the report from [redacted] is received, we will advise you of the
findings and whether or not an engineer will be needed.

A response has been sent to [redacted] 7/15/2014 from Travelers Portland Oregon Claim Center as follows:
"Your dwelling was inspected on June 26, 2014 with your contractor [redacted].  Our inspection revealed that the floor was soft from exposure to water.  As part of...

our investigation we agreed to have [redacted] detach the toilet and pull up the vinyl floor"........he proceeded to do that the next day, photos were then submitted showing extensive water damage(s) to the subfloor, baseboard(s), lower wall(s) and floor covering(s).  "The photos showed evidence of shower, toilet leaks and rot damages. Based on the amount of damages found in this area this is not a recent leak but one that has been ongoing for an extended period of time.  It also appears that both the toilet and shower are leaking possibly due to faulty installation aas the bathroom was remodeled two years ago."    (the letter includes the policy language in section HO-3(11/06)
"Our investigation revealed that the damages you are claiming have occurred over an extended period of time and possibly due to faulty installation.  It also appears that there are two leaks.  The shower and toilet are both leaking.  As the above mentioned exclusion are applicable to the loss the damages do not qualify as a peril insured against.  Thus no policy beneifts are available under the Additional Coverage of Limited "Fungi", Other Microbes Or Rot Remediation.
Our records show we have advised you of the process and coverages on 6/24/14, 6/26/14, 6/30/14, 7/3/14 and 7/8/14.  While no benefits are available for your loss, we have issued payment for damages caused as part of our investigation.  A payment in the amount of $1,143.49 was issued to you on July 3, 2014.  A copy of the estimate has also been previously forwarded to you."

A response was sent to [redacted] on September 4, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Center.
"Your email of August 26,
2014 to the Revdex.com, regarding the hail damage to your roof,...

has
been forwarded to me for a response. The Travelers [redacted] (“Travelers”) issued a homeowners policy to you insuring your
home located in [redacted]. The policy was in effect on the date of the reported loss. You
have complained that your home’s roof sustained hail damage which you feel
requires a complete roof replacement and the inspection by the engineer was not
unbiased. Travelers has inspected the property as well as hired an engineer to
inspect the property and found no hail damage to the shingles on the roof."
The response letter included a timeline of events regarding the claim and inspection outcomes.
"Travelers understands you would like to have your
roof replaced, but multiple inspections show that the roof is not damaged by
hail. We trust this response will serve as sufficient
explanation of our position regarding your claim. Travelers understands you would like to have your
roof replaced, but multiple inspections show that the roof is not damaged by
hail. We trust this response will serve as sufficient
explanation of our position regarding your claim."

A response was sent 10/27/2016.....Auto claim was investigated, and discussed with claimant on October 21, 2016...due to the conflicting nature of the statements Travelers received, from insured driver and the driver of your vehicle, it is unable to accept liability for the auto...

accident.

A response was sent to Mr. Reed on May 21, 2014 from Travelers Overland Park KS Claim Center as follows:
"Please
allow this letter as our response...

regarding a complaint you filed with the
Revdex.com.  I have completed
a review of your claim and understand that you are not satisfied with the offer
of settlement proposed by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
(“Travelers”) to resolve your claim to conclusion.    
Your
claim was reported to us on February 07, 2014. 
[redacted]. spoke with you on 02/07/2014 after she received the
assignment of this claim.  Your claim was
subsequently reassigned to Abbie H. 
You
and I discussed your claim on May 19, 2014 as you were unsatisfied with the
offer to resolve your claim that you received from Travelers.  In our conversation you indicated that you
retained the services of a contractor and signed a contract with them.  You indicated that your expectation was that
we would pay your claim from the estimate prepared by your contractor.  I indicated that it appeared from the claim
notes that your contractor wrote to repair or replace items that were not of
like kind and quality of the items that needed repair or replacement as part of
your home.  We discussed that we owe for
like kind and quality of materials and we do not owe to provide upgraded
materials for your home.  At that time, I
suggested to you that you provide a copy of the estimate prepared by your
contractor and that we would have the estimate reviewed and move the discussion
from there.  We do have a copy of the
estimate prepared by your contractor. 
You
also indicated in our conversation that you believed that your Wurlitzer
jukebox was electrically damaged and now your jukebox has a short in it.  You also expressed concerns about the value
of the leather couch. 
I
suggested that you address your concerns with the evaluation and that if
possible to please provide documentation to support your position on the value
of the repairs as well as the jukebox and couch.  It appears that you and [redacted] are
actively engaged in moving your claim forward. "

A response was sent to [redacted] on 7/11/2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Center.
The response  explained that Travelers Claim understands [redacted] does not have reliable cell service and Travelers has offered alternatives to facilitate communication.  [redacted]...

 expressed his willingness to meet with a Travelers representative and it is Travelers hopes to secure all information needed to complete it's investigation at that time.