AAA American Air Conditioning and Heating

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.

A response was sent to [redacted], July 25, 2014 from Travelers Hartford CT Claim Service Center as follows:
"
Please accept this letter in
response to your correspondence to the Revdex.com dated July 18,
2014.  I appreciate the opportunity to
review this matter and explain...

the handling of this claim.
The above captioned loss was
reported to The Travelers Home and Marine Company (hereinafter referred to as
“Travelers”) on June 17, 2014.  This loss
involved damage to a roof by a wind event. 
The dwelling is located at [redacted].  Travelers has evaluated the claim under the
Homeowners policy (Form HO-3 10/06 ed.) that we issued to you, our named
insured.
In response to your request we
have reviewed your inquiry.  The claim
was called in on June 17, 2014 by a roofing contractor, [redacted]”.  During our initial contact with you on June
18, 2014, you stated that you had shingles “all over the yard”.  You stated you were having chimney repairs
completed and the chimney person told you that he observed wind damage to the
roof.  
We completed our on-site
inspection on June 19, 2014.  You
confirmed the details from the initial contact and added that the roof was
original to the home built in 1999.  As
part of our investigation we called the chimney repair person to inquire about what
he observed he stressed that he is not a roofer but he thought there may be
wind damage. 
As part of our claim
investigation, we evaluate whether the date of loss falls within the policy
period.  With respect to the policy
period, Travelers issued a Homeowner’s policy you with effective dates of
October 3, 2012 to October 3, 2013. 
However, the policy was cancelled during that policy period; the
cancellation notice on the policy was issued to the insured in October of 2012
and to the mortgagee in April of 2013.  The
agent, [redacted], confirmed that the policy was cancelled in April of
2013 and there was no record you ever contacting the agent regarding the loss
while the policy was in force. 
With respect to the date of loss,
the you have been unable to establish when the loss occurred.  Furthermore, it is impossible for Travelers
to determine when this loss occurred due to the delay in reporting and the
number of storms and other wind events that have happened from the claimed date
of loss to the notice of loss.
As a result of our coverage
findings, we conveyed to you that the delay in reporting does not allow us the
ability to properly determine whether the damages occurred while the policy was
in force.  Therefore our coverage
position was conveyed to you on July 11, 2014 in writing and verbally.  We have responded to you on many levels regarding
his concerns with applicable coverage. 
I hope that this helps clarify Travelers’ position with
regard to this claim. "

A response was sent 4/29/2015 as follows:
"My
apologies that you feel Travelers response to your complaint was unacceptable
and unfair.  However, Travelers stands by
our [redacted] settlement, and our claims handling practices during the course of your
claim.      
Again,
I am sorry that the settlement amount provided did not meet your expectations. Your
policy does provide an Appraisal Clause if you wish to invoke it to help
resolve the dispute over the value."  (The language of the clause in the policy was provided in the response letter)

We received the Revdex.com complaint, your file # [redacted] – [redacted] out of New York, however, we cannot identify his business insurance policy in our system.  We require additional information: Business Name Business Address Policy Number...

Complaint: 10082494
I am rejecting this response because: contacting the current insurance company and correcting this would only cut the future charges. But it does not reduce the charges thats incurred in the past. Hence the response is not relevant.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent to [redacted] on 7/17/2104 from Travelers Rancho Cordova CA Claim Center as follows:
"This letter will serve as a...

response to your complaint dated
7/7/2014 for the above referenced claim. 
I am a manger in the claim center where the loss was handled and I have
reviewed your request and the claim file.
Please see the attached letter dated December 5, 2013 which
details our repeated requests for the required documentation and the reasons
your claim was denied.  As you
continually refused to comply with the Duties After Loss portion of the Conditions
section of your policy your policy does not provide coverage for this loss.
After a careful
review of the facts of the loss, claim process, and policy we have determined
that the coverage determination made on December 5, 2013 was correct and
reflects the company's final position regarding this claim. Our decision is
based upon the information and documentation we received in connection with our
research of this claim. 
Your policy may have
other terms, conditions and exclusions that apply to this claim. We do not
waive any rights, including our right to deny coverage, for any other valid
reason under the policy or at law."

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Although the response addresses the late payment which was caused by the company it does not address additional premium expense incurred by misinformation from customer service department. It also does not address a change in policy to protect the public nor does it address the lack of coverage for premiums paid.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent March 14, 2014 from Travelers Overland Park KS Claim Service Center as follows:
"This letter is in response to your complaint filed with the Revdex.com...

(Revdex.com).
On June 25, 2013 we performed an inspection of your home in response to your filing of a claim for hail
and windstorm related damage on June 21, 2013. During this inspection, the claim professional found
evidence of hail damage to vinyl siding on all elevations, soft metal vents on your roof, shingles, and
gutters. The claim professional also found wind damage to the rear elevation soffit and right elevation
fascia. An estimate was prepared for those observed damages. The estimate written reflected a
Replacement Cost of $27,227.89. We issued payment to you less your deductible and recoverable
depreciation in the amount of $20,162.85.
On July 16, 2013 the claim professional received confirmation from your contractor, Frank Fabio
Company that they would complete the required repairs to your home for the estimated cost of
$27,227.89.
On or about August 16, 2013 we received a different contractor’s request and documentation for a small
supplement increasing the estimate to $27,315.50. The claim professional validated the request and
issued payment for the recoverable depreciation plus small supplement totaling $6,152.65.
On September 4, 2013 the claim professional received another supplement request from this second
contractor, A[redacted] Construction Company in the amount of $4,000.00 with no explanation of
what the supplement was for. We then discovered the previous documentation this contractor supplied
was only for the roof portion of your claim, not for the siding. The claim professional had already
released the recoverable depreciation applied for the roof and siding and your claim was paid in full to
the Replacement Cost less your deductible. This contractor was requesting an additional $4,000.00 for
replacement of the siding portion of the estimate which we then discovered had not yet been completed.
The claim professional attempted to reach this contractor to discuss the $4,000.00 supplement request
but never received a return call. The claim was returned to closed status.
On October 15, 2013 the claim professional met you at your home as you requested based on additional
damage you observed in your home consisting of water damage. As your claim professional explained to
you at that time, the interior water damage was unrelated to your prior hail and windstorm claim on June
20, 2013. The water damage appeared to be seeping through the foundation of the home. You showed
the claim professional papers which you contend were from Travelers in the form of an estimate which
allowed for carpet and pad replacement. The claim professional pointed out to you that the papers which
reflected carpet and pad were not part of the Travelers work product Xactimate estimate as it did not
inlude the Travelers logo nor was in Xactimate format. The claim professional followed up in writing
advising you that not only was the interior water that was observed five months after the original claim
date of loss unrelated to that claim, but that seepage of water through the foundation of the dwelling was
specifically excluded by your policy.
The deck which is attached to your home was included in the original estimate to pressure wash and
stain. This was due to small indentations left by the hail. Pressure washing the wood raises these minor
indentations and is an industry approved repair method. Once power washed, the stain should be
re-applied. You contend the windstorm “loosened” your deck when in fact the wind speed recorded in
your area did not exceed 60 MPH based on NOAA data. Wind speeds less than 60 MPH are listed as
“UNK” which means Unknown. The claim professional did observe some areas on the deck which
showed a lack of maintenance which is also specifically excluded by your policy.
The elevator in your home which you also claim was damaged is not a result of the hail and windstorm
of June 20, 2013. The observations by the claim professional were that the elevator was not working
properly due to wear and tear and lack of proper maintenance. Again, this is specifically excluded by
your policy."

A response was sent to Mr. Aluya, april 7, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Buisness Center as follows:
"This is in response to your rejection to our response dated March 21, 2014.
I have enclosed a copy of the Auto Quote/Policy Acceptance Form which lists Drivers in Household and both you and [redacted] are listed dirvers.  [redacted]'s License Number is listed as International.  On the second page of this form are the signatures of the first named insured and the second named insurend and both were dated November 28, 2011.
Mr. Aluya, I am sorry we are unable to honor your request to back date your request to remove [redacted] as a driver on the policy.  Again, I apologize if there has been any misunderstanding."

A response is going out today from Travelers.
It included a summary of the activity on the account, as well as the following:
"After
reviewing your...

account, we are strongly recommending that you complete the
self-audit in order to assess the proper premium that should be charged to the
09/20/2013-90/20/2014 policy period.  The
policy was initially written with an estimated exposure that was to be verified
at the policy expiration by the self-audit. 
Once the self-audit is returned, we can properly assess the final
premium that may result in a refund or an additional payment based on the
actual exposure incurred during the 09/20/2013-09/20/2014 policy period.
If you have any questions in regards to the self-audit
process, please feel free to contact our Audit Department."

A response was sent to [redacted] on February 27, 2014 from Travelers Knoxville TN Business Center as follows:
"Thank you for your recent
inquiry to Travelers through the Revdex.com.  I appreciate
having...

the opportunity to address your inquiry in this letter.
First, thank you for your
continued business with us since 2011. We appreciate your choice. I have
reviewed your account and agree that the Intellidrive program was not fully
explained to you when you were purchasing your automobile policy. In light of
this, it is my pleasure to waive the $52 in additional premium on this policy
term. "

[redacted] - Travelers Home Owners InsuranceComplaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  I received the letter from Travelers and spoke with them about this letter.  In fact, it is NOT correct by their own admission. 
The representative I spoke with, Mr. Thomas M[redacted] was also rude and tried to tell me there would be no further conversation on the matter and this was Travelers final decision.  And, by the way, please know you and Travelers certainly have my permission, by virtue of this filing, for my consent to address the my file.  What a BS statement saying they can't address the specifics of my policy.
Travelers states there were four claims during the 4 or 5 year period of review (no clarified timeline in their letter of November 17, 2015), and stated only two of the claims were weather related.  In fact, upon questioning, Mr. M[redacted] at Travelers admitted 3 claims were found to be weather related; two claims on the same roof problems during this past October 2014-March 2015 winter with record setting snow accumulation and one prior weather claim back in 2011.  Kindly confirm the total amount of the three weather related claims in four years is less than $13,000 to cover repairs.  The claims DID NOT replace a kitchen, or something of more substantial nature.
The 4th and final claim in May/June 2014, was the for the loss of a small hearing aid, in a public place.  I believe the amount received after the deductible was less than $850.
These claims are what we have the policies for.  They are certainly NOT out of the ordinary nor excessive in total amount for a four year period, especially when there is severe New England weather.  Travelers should be required to review my 35+ year history of home owners, property and other insurance and my premiums paid.
Travelers should 1) promptly reinstate me with 2) full apology, 3) apply retroactive group policy customer discounts, 4) receive credit for senior benefit / inconvenience / stress and 5) be given full reimbursement for the cost of having to change insurance policies to a much higher rate and necessity for me to pur[redacted] an additional liability policy to satisfy [redacted] Bank, my mortgage lender.  In fact, treble damages should be stressed.
I am ready and willing to be interviewed by the [redacted] and [redacted] news media and will also consider asking a major Connecticut TV/Radio Network launch their own investigation.  If these minimal losses over a four year period cause Travelers to cancel long-time, loyal, senior customers, they should be publically humiliated and fined, accordingly.
Kindly continue your excellent Revdex.com/CT efforts for proper customer service and satisfaction.  Thank you very much and kindly confirm receipt of this continued complaint. 
With kind regards,
[redacted]
[redacted], [redacted], ** 01810 
[redacted]

A response was sent to [redacted] 12/29/2015.
Both claims were denied due to policy exclusions.
Additionally, the roof leak claim was reopened, for consideration of documents received from [redacted]'s contractor, however, when Travelers requested a re inspection of the roof, it had...

already been replaced and contractor was just finishing up.  Travelers was not given the opportunity to re-inspect the roof therefore no further consideration could be given.
Contact information was provided in this response to [redacted] if she had any additional questions.

A response was sent to [redacted] 5/23/2016 - outlining the timeline and valuation offers made for her vehicle.  Each time valuation offers were made she has rejected them.
size="3">Pertaining to the two days that she alleges she was unable to get to work due to no transportation the claim representative made contact with her on Monday April 25th and accepted liability the next day.  The liability decision was made within two business days which demonstrates no delay in handling.  Additionally, the law requires a person who has sustained damages due to the negligence of another to take all reasonable steps to minimize [his] [her] damages.  In this case it would have been appropriate for her to obtain alternative transportation to and from work on Monday and Tuesday.  Considering the liability decision was made Tuesday afternoon we would be willing to allow the cost of two more days of rental which was $29.97 per day or $59.94, which is based on the cost of a rental plus applicable taxes.

Travelers received this complaint thru the South Carolina Department of Insurance, (DOI) and a response was sent to them on 4/8/2014.  please refer Mr. Martin to the South Carolina DOI.
"I am writing on behalf of The Automobile...

Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut
("Travelers") regarding the above referenced complaint that Mr. Martin recently filed with your office.
Travelers issued a Homeowners policy to [redacted], the named insured, providing certain coverage for her home located at 211 Wheeling Circle, Glendale SC 29346. [redacted] died in February 2013, and shortly thereafter, Michael Fred Martin, her grandson and personal representative, was named an additional insured under the policy.
A fire occurred on or about January 13, 2014. Due to asbestos concerns, no investigation regarding the fire could be made until after a licensed asbestos professional was able to confirm the presence or absence of friable asbestos at the property. We were able to confirm the presence of friable asbestos on January 20, 2014, which required a qualified asbestos personnel to assist in the fire investigation. The investigation regarding the origin and cause of the fire recently found that neither the origin nor the cause of the fire could be determined. Now that this portion of the investigation has been completed, Mr. Martin can begin removal of the debris.
Several issues regarding the claim; however, remain. For example, Mr. Martin recently returned an extensive personal property list that needs to be reviewed as well as his right to recover for damage to his personal property under the policy. In addition, Travelers is concerned whether it is dealing with the appropriate legal representative on behalf of the Estate. While Mr. Martin has provided a copy of the [redacted] will identifying him as the executor, South Carolina requires a representative to obtain court appointment before he is qualified to act as the representative. To date, we have not received any of the requested documentation, such as Letters Testamentary, giving Mr. Martin the legal right to act on behalf of [redacted] Estate.
In order to address the remaining issues, Travelers intends to examine Mr. Martin under oath as soon as date and time can be confirmed with Mr. Martin and Travelers’ counsel. Travelers is acting in good faith in its efforts to verify the claim. "

A response to [redacted] was sent August 25, 2014 from [redacted] Business Center as follows:
serif;">"Thank
you for your recent inquiry to Travelers through the RevDex.com.  We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
Please
accept my apologies for your recent experience with Travelers. We pride
ourselves on delivering the best customer experience and regret not meeting
those expectations. I have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the billing
portion of your account; here is an explanation of my findings:"
A chronology of all
policy activity was included in the response letter, dated from May 29, 2013 to
June 25, 2014.
"Based upon the cancellation date and payments received thus
far, there is a balance remaining of $75.65 for this automobile policy. If
you’d like to pay this remaining balance directly with Travelers you may
contact our Service Representatives at ###-###-####. You may also contact the [redacted] Company directly to take care of the balance."

A response was sent to [redacted] on August 18, 2014 from Travelers Alpharetta GA Claim Center as follows:
"This letter is to follow up on our conversation from August 12, 2014 in which we discussed your concerns regarding...

The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company’s (hereinafter referred to as Travelers) inability to recover your $500 deductible. This deductible was incurred due to a September 21, 2013 accident involving a vehicle that opened their car door into your vehicle in a parking lot. The insurance carrier for the other vehicle did not accept liability for the loss and you filed your damages under the collision coverage of your auto policy.
Travelers conducted an investigation into the loss and determined that you were not responsible for the accident. This was based on the police report, points of impact and statements obtained. However, the other insurance company found you to be at fault for the accident for improper passing. Intercompany arbitration was then filed to resolve the dispute between the carriers and to attempt to recover the amount paid on your claim. On May 2, 2014 Travelers received a decision from an arbitration panelist. The panelist stated that in your statement you admitted to seeing the other vehicle stop and put on their lights to indicate they were going to let out passengers at the entrance to a grocery store. The panelist ruled that more care was needed by your part while passing. They ruled that you were 75 percent at fault for improper passing but did place 25 percent negligence against the other party for not taking more care when opening their car door.
Due to the fact you were placed as being majority at fault for the accident by the arbitration panelist, we are not able to recover any amount paid on your claim by you or the policy. During our discussion you asked for the other carrier’s information to give them a call to discuss their decision to deny liability from the onset. I provided that information to you for your reference."

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Received packet with response letter from [redacted] office dated 10/2/2014, in the letter on page 2: "History Report which reveals that on September 5th, 2013 at your residence location that you did have some wind gusts but the report does not identify any sizeable hail hits." I am attaching pictures from my neighborhood and from the [redacted] newspaper archives from my neighborhood on the hail storm.
My argument is how can houses in my same neighborhood, and right next door to me suffer hail damage significant enough to replace their roofs and mine did not. There are 2 other houses covered by Travelers in same neighborhood, that their roofs were repaired?
Also because of the age of my roof, it will suffer more damage including granular displacement from the hail impact.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Travelers
previously received a complaint from Mr. Sklar, Travelers position has not
changed,...

therefore, no response is
necessary to Mr. Sklar at this time.

A response was sent to [redacted]l on July 15, 2016 from our [redacted] Business Center.  Travelers thoroughly reviewed our policy records and see that the policy was set to non-renew effective July 1, 2016 but the insured chose to cancel the home...

policy June 30, 2016. Travelers will not offer any extension of time for repairs and also no reconsideration for reinstatement as the letter requesting proof of repairs was mailed on March 10, 2016. In light of this review, we decline to offer any refund of monies the insured may have borrowed to correct the conditions needed to the home.