AAA American Air Conditioning and Heating

A response was sent to [redacted] on August 29, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Center:
The response letter outlined the dates and timeline of the claim inspections performed and outcome of each inspection.
serif;">"Three inspections show that there is no damage
to the roof or walls that is caused by a covered cause of loss that is allowing
water to enter. The roof is aging normally and is deteriorating in areas. This
is allowing the water intrusion that is entering into the units. As wear, tear
and deterioration is not a covered cause of loss, the limitation would apply
and there is no coverage for the additional interior water damage that is now
present. The only item that can be covered in this claim is the initial water
damage that occurred when the snow was melting. We have already estimated that
and included that in the estimate and payment. 
A separate claim would need to be submitted for the damage to the
downspout as that is not related to the snow and ice that this claim was turned
in for.
On
August 25, I explained to you that Travelers would be hiring an engineer to
inspect the roof to determine if the roof is damaged and the cause of the damage. [redacted] was hired the same day and will be contacting you to set a
time that they can inspect the roof of the home. After their inspection they
will prepare a report which we will review and share with you. The inspection
and report should be completed within the next three weeks.
We value your business and understand your frustrations with
the claim process up to this point.  We will be back in touch with you as
soon as the engineer’s report is received.  Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions.
On
August 25, as explained to you that Travelers would be hiring an engineer to
inspect the roof to determine if the roof is damaged and the cause of the damage. [redacted] was hired the same day and will be contacting you to set a
time that they can inspect the roof of the home. After their inspection they
will prepare a report which we will review and share with you. The inspection
and report should be completed within the next three weeks.
We value your business and understand your frustrations with
the claim process up to this point.  We will be back in touch with you as
soon as the engineer’s report is received.  Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions."

A response was sent to [redacted], July 1, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Business Center as follows:
"Thank you for your correspondence...

of June 29,
2014 which has been forwarded to us from the Revdex.com for
response.  We appreciate the opportunity
to respond regarding the recent cancellation of your automobile policy.
We have reviewed our policy records and find
this policy was originally issued by the agent effective April 8, 2014.  According to Travelers new business
eligibility requirements, any operator who has owned a car that has been
uninsured for more than 30 consecutive days, or who cannot show prior
automobile liability in coverage in force for at least 6 consecutive months, is
ineligible.
At the time of application, it was indicated to
us that you had maintained continuous insurance for a period greater than or
equal to 6 months but less than one year and that that you had been insured
with your current carrier (at that time) for less than 6 months.  This met Travelers new business eligibility.
However, we were not able to validate this information.  Therefore, on April 21, 2014, a letter was
issued to your agent requesting proof of prior insurance.
When we did not receive a response to our
request, a Notice of Cancellation was issued on May 29, 2014 informing you that
your policy was being cancelled effective June 13, 2014 because we did not
receive the necessary information to complete our underwriting process.  Specifically, we did not receive a copy of
the declaration pages from your prior carrier showing 6 months of continuous
insurance.
On
May 30, 2014, our customer service representative informed you that your policy
was being cancelled because we did not receive proof of prior insurance and
requested that you fax in your prior declarations page for consideration of
reinstatement.  On June 2, 2014, we
received your fax and you were informed that it would be reviewed by an
underwriter for possible reinstatement. 
On
June 7, 2014, you contacted us to make a payment.  At that time, you were informed that your
policy had not been reinstated and that the documentation you provided was
still pending underwriting review.  In
addition, we informed you that the underwriters are not available on weekends
and that you should call back on Monday (June 9, 2014) for our decision. We
were not contacted again until after the cancellation effective date.
It
important to note that the information (declarations page) provided by you on
June 2, 2014 was not accepted by the underwriter as proof of continuous
insurance coverage because it did not confirm continuous insurance coverage for
a full 6 months. The risk does not meet our eligibility guidelines and the
reinstatement of the policy was declined. 
We
regret that we are unable to reinstate the policy to provide coverage for the loss
that occurred on June 14, 2014.

A response has been sent 12/16/2015......
mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"">Your insurance application for Workers’ Compensation and exclusion form on file sent to Travelers by your agent only named you to be excluded; therefore, when the physical audit was completed, the auditor excluded you as the policy endorsement indicated. 
It was not until you sent over the signed exclusion forms for [redacted] * Change dated 12/12/13 attached to your complaint that we were able to determine that your intent was to also exclude the other two officers.
I worked with our Underwriter and they allowed an adjustment to your billing in the amount of $4,960 credit for the exposure charged on the audit for [redacted] Change.

A response was sent to [redacted] on July 31, 2014 from Travelers Spokane Business Center as follows:
"Thank you for your recent inquiry to Travelers through the
Revdex.com.  We appreciate
the opportunity to address your concerns.
First, please accept my apologies for your...

overall
service experience with Travelers.  We pride ourselves on delivering the
best customer experience and sincerely regret not meeting those expectations
for you.
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
mention in your letter to us. 
A request for proof of repairs was sent to you on June 13,
2014.  Our [redacted] 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 would be
effective until August 14, 2014.  
[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. I do apologize for any distress or hardship this
has caused you. If you have further questions, please let me know."

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The appraiser that was assigned to contact me was apparently [redacted] who in my original complaint was a huge part of the issue. I had already notified Traveler's Insurance that [redacted] was not to contact me in any way back in July of this year. I did not appreciate having her call my phone and wake me up two days in s row; I also received an email from her. I notified [redacted] that she was contacting me and that I did not appreciate someone instructing her to contact me. I asked due to her prior behavior I would very obviously like for someone else to complete the reinspection[redacted] emailed me back and started he would be coming to do the reinspection today (10/07/2016) at approximately 2:15pm. Again, as I've started numerous times before, I will accept the claim has having been resolved once the reinspection has been completed and an outcome to my satisfaction has been determined.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A resonse was sent to Mr Locklear on 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.
Our annual rate adjustments are filed with the state of
North Carolina after extensive actuarial review and are based on analysis of a
large number of risk characteristics and their relationship to our existing
loss activity.   Travelers is committed
to establishing premium rates that are sufficient to cover losses, yet
affordable to our policyholders and competitive in the marketplace
The policy premium is an individualized rate based on the
specific risk characteristics. Many factors are used to determine the final
premium including, but not limited to, age of home, location of property,
account credit and coverage limits. Any combination of these factors can cause
the rate to go above the North Carolina Bureau rate causing the policy to
become applicable for Consent to Rate.
Travelers is unable to provide a policy at the Bureau rate
based on the information provided to us. We provide the best possible rate
based on the characteristics of the policy. The Bureau does not sell policies;
they only set forth the rates. There
are several things that can be done to improve pricing; however, it may or may
not remove the policy from Consent to Rate. Account rounding and / or
increasing deductibles can lower the overall policy premium.
I regret that you are dissatisfied with the premium charged
for your renewal with Travelers.  While I
understand and empathize with your disappointment, please know that your
premium has been calculated based on our filed rules and rates in the state of
North Carolina which apply to all policyholders.
We do appreciate your business Mr. Locklear and for being a
customer since 2007.  We hope that you
continue to allow us to provide your insurance needs. Feel free to contact me
if you have any additional questions."

A response was sent to [redacted] on August 4, 2014 from Travelers Glens Falls Business Center as follows:
A review of our records found that your policy was originally issued under an installment agreemnt that required a 25% down payment at application followed by 9 equal installments to pay...

the term in full.  Based upon the issue premium of $1314, this would equate to a down payment of $335.25 and 9 installments of approximately $111.75.
Your actual down payment was $350, which is more than required.  This payment would have reduced the first of the 9 installments by approxmately $14.75.
As you are aware, and we acknowledge, the initial down payment of $350 was not credited to your account initially.  The initial bill that was sent to you on 11/11/13 (due 12/2/13), therefore, reflected a higher minimum due ($559) than was actually required.  A payment was still required to bring your account current.  No payment was received by 12/2/13, so your policy became subject to cancellation for nonpayment.  A notice was mailed for the past due balance by 1/5/14. 
The payment of $120 on 12/19/13, was insufficient to meet the required minimum, even after factoring in the $350 down payment.  We regret Travelers is unable to reinstate your policy.

A response was sent to [redacted] on August 29, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Business Center.
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 the replacement cost of the
home was higher than the coverage you carried. Travelers does require the homes
they insured to be covered at 100% of the replacement cost. Due to this
requirement your coverage was adjusted accordingly effective July 25, 2012 per
the prior notification we mailed to you.
In
reviewing your account closely, Travelers has made the necessary adjustments to cancel
the risk effective May 23, 2013 as you purchased other insurance. This
adjustment will lower the amount due on the account by $75.00; your future bills will be adjusted
accordingly. Unfortunately there will be a remaining balance, which will be
provided by the [redacted] Corporation, as additional coverage was provided to you
based upon the inspection results.

A response was sent 4/22/2015 as follows:
"I am responding to your inquiry regarding the above
captioned claim. Please note that...

as an initial matter that your are not our
customer; rather you are a unit owner in the condominium community where we
insure the Association.  Given your
connection to the claim however, we are responding to your concerns.
This claim was initially reported to [redacted] on June 9,
2014. After an initial inspection of the damaged units involved, we wrote an
estimate and provided it to our insured point of contact on June 18, 2014. As
the claim was below the insured’s deductible at that time, no payment was
issued.
After learning of your incurred cost, which was higher than
our estimated cost by roughly $4,000, we made several revisions to the estimate
while attempting to speak with the contractor who performed the repair.
We did not, and do not now, feel the cost incurred by you
was  reasonable. However, a decision was
made in December 2014 to pay based on this cost in an effort to protect our
insured, [redacted]
The reason for any delay in payment was due to a dispute
regarding the reasonable cost of the work. We continue to disagree that the
cost incurred was reasonable, but in an effort to reach a resolution we have
paid the disputed charges in full. Additionally, there is no language in the
policy entitling either our named insured or any unit owner from additional
interest payment. Both the association and the unit owner have been
indemnified, and no further funds are due. This has been communicated to you on
multiple occasions.
I
sincerely hope that our conversations have addressed to your concerns."

I filed a claim and could not have had a better experience with this co. they were professional and handled my claim in a timely manner

I got a call from the adjuster from Travelers on 11/08/15. I was told that they will make some adjustment of the labor rate and mail me the new estimate and extra payment.
I received the new estimate and extra payment about week later. I have to reject the the new adjustment, because it is still short of $334.43. ( see my last response on 11/18/15 ) I rejected on 11/18/15 with Revdex.com. I also send the Manager of Travelers a letter of my objection. I requested the extra payment of $334.43 to settle the claim.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
 
As I've shared with you via email, Travelers cannot soundly prove nor disprove that the ice-damming documented in the original claim did not damage the roof and create the breach in the roof that has allowed water to enter into the exterior walls. Travelers site notates that ice-damming can, in fact, damage the roof structure. I have yet to be contacted by the engineer even though I provided my phone number on August 26, 2014, and our roof repairs will begin as early as next Monday, 9/8. That being said, it's hard to believe that an engineer affiliated with Travelers will provide an unbiased assessment; however, I'm willing to take his/her assessment into consideration.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I have had subsequent communication with the company which corrected their first response and left the door open for further discussion.  The matter is still open.
I've attached yesterday's email communication for your information.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent to 11/22/2015.
We have thoroughly reviewed our policy records with information also provided
from the agency and we have revised the
cancellation date. Balance due is...

now $0. We will not
be communicating any information, positive or negative, to a credit bureau.

“Based on Travelers receiving a Virginia Department of Insurnace complaint, a
response was sent...

to Mr. [redacted] on 10/13/2014 from Travelers [redacted] Business Center.
The
policy terms have been corrected back to 2011.  This was communicated to
Mr. [redacted], and the appropriate return premiums will be applied to his
account.
It
is Travelers goal to work with our policyholders to review their property and
help them understand the amount of coverage that may be appropriate for their
needs.  Over time, adjustments may be need to ensure that the coverage
limits remain consistent with the reconstruction value of the home.  Our
records do not reflect that Mr. [redacted] contacted his agent or Travelers to
review his policy limits until the September 2014 discussion.  At that
time, a review was conducted to estimate the replacement cost of his home and
the coverage was revised accordingly.”

A response was sent 7/26/2016..
"We have reviewed your inquiry and acknowledge your concern with the increase in your policy premium as a result of the upcoming residence address change. Based upon the...

garaging location of your vehicle, a territory is assigned for rating purposes.  The rating factor associated with your new territory is higher than your previous territory. While we understand that the change in your premium is not to your satisfaction, we still feel we are offering an outstanding product with a competitive price within the marketplace. To offset some of the increase, we do offer additional discounts through completion of an approved defensive driver course as well as enrollment in our electronic funds transfer billing program.
 
In light of our review, we are rating your policy correctly with the new address which is consistent and compliant with our filing with the [redacted] Department of Insurance. Again, we acknowledge your dissatisfaction with the rate increase but hope you will remain our customer."

A response was sent to [redacted] on September 18, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Center.
"You have expressed concern about Travelers initial assessment that
the roof itself was not damaged by ice damming and you are concerned that the
engineer is affiliated with Travelers and is unable to offer an unbiased
opinion.
On September 4, 2014 Senior Forensic Engineer [redacted] from [redacted] inspected the loss with you and [redacted].
The engineer report confirms
that the ice buildup did not create any openings in the roof that allowed water
to enter. The roof openings are a due to deterioration from exposure to solar
radiation, rot and decay and construction defects in the roof itself. These
conditions are allowing the water intrusion that is entering
the building. As deterioration, decay and defective construction are not a
covered cause of loss, the limitation described in our first letter would apply
and there is no coverage for the additional interior water damage that is now
present. The only item that can be covered in this claim is the initial water
damage that occurred when the snow and ice was melting.
 
I
have also attached a copy of the revised partial denial letter that explains
the limitation that applies to the interior water damage and explains why we
can not allow for the water damage that is continuing to occur. We understand
that you would like the interior water damage paid for but the policy does not
provide coverage for these damages. You are a valued customer and we
regret we are unable to resolve this claim to your satisfaction.
We trust this response will serve as sufficient
explanation of our position regarding your claim to date."

A response was sent to [redacted] on August 29, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Center:
The response letter outlined the dates and timeline of the claim inspections performed and outcome of each inspection.
"Three inspections show that there is no damage
to the roof or walls that is...

caused by a covered cause of loss that is allowing
water to enter. The roof is aging normally and is deteriorating in areas. This
is allowing the water intrusion that is entering into the units. As wear, tear
and deterioration is not a covered cause of loss, the limitation would apply
and there is no coverage for the additional interior water damage that is now
present. The only item that can be covered in this claim is the initial water
damage that occurred when the snow was melting. We have already estimated that
and included that in the estimate and payment. 
A separate claim would need to be submitted for the damage to the
downspout as that is not related to the snow and ice that this claim was turned
in for.
On
August 25, I explained to you that Travelers would be hiring an engineer to
inspect the roof to determine if the roof is damaged and the cause of the damage. [redacted] was hired the same day and will be contacting you to set a
time that they can inspect the roof of the home. After their inspection they
will prepare a report which we will review and share with you. The inspection
and report should be completed within the next three weeks.
We value your business and understand your frustrations with
the claim process up to this point.  We will be back in touch with you as
soon as the engineer’s report is received.  Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions.
On
August 25, as explained to you that Travelers would be hiring an engineer to
inspect the roof to determine if the roof is damaged and the cause of the damage. [redacted] was hired the same day and will be contacting you to set a
time that they can inspect the roof of the home. After their inspection they
will prepare a report which we will review and share with you. The inspection
and report should be completed within the next three weeks.
We value your business and understand your frustrations with
the claim process up to this point.  We will be back in touch with you as
soon as the engineer’s report is received.  Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions."

A response was sent to Ms. [redacted] on February 20, 2014 from Travelers [redacted] Claim Service Center as follows:
"We received notice
of your complaint to...

the Revdex.com and wanted to follow up with
you regarding your claim experience.  I
understand that as of the date of your complaint, you had not received the
payment that we issued on January 31, 2014. 
As we now know, the check arrived two weeks after we mailed it.  Unfortunately, you had alerted us to the
missing check and requested that we stop the check in order to issue a
replacement check.  The replacement check
was issued on February 14, 2014, when the original check was cleared for a stop
payment.  You confirmed for me yesterday
on the phone that you have received the replacement check.   
We received your
claim for water damage on January 8, 2014. 
Our claim representative inspected your property on January 9, 2014, and
explained that we would write an estimate for the wood floor upgrade, which
would be covered by your policy.  The
other damage—to include an allowance for the original flooring (carpet)—would
be the responsibility of the condo association’s insurance policy.  Our claim representative explained that she
would follow up with the association in order to determine their allowance for
the original flooring, so that we could finalize our estimate to account for
the upgrade to wood flooring.  Our claim
representative followed up weekly with you and the condo association in order
to finalize our estimate.  Finally, on
January 31, 2014, we decided to move forward by allowing for a standard carpet
allowance because the condo association had failed to provide us with its
allowance.  We finalized our estimate and
issued payment to you in the amount of $1,851.95.  We again followed up with the condo
association on February 3, 2014, but have not received a response.  On February 10, 2014, we received notice from
you that you had not received the check. 
We proceeded to stop the check in order to re-issue another check to
you.  The second check was issued to you
on February 14, 2014.   
At this point, you have received the replacement check
but are still waiting for the condo association to provide you with their
allowance for the carpet and to schedule the remaining repairs.  If we can be of any assistance regarding
communication with the condo association or their allowance, please do not
hesitate to contact either your claim representative or me.  Unfortunately, we are not able to compensate
you for missed time from work or interest charges from your credit card as the
policy makes no allowance for either cost. 
 "

A response has been sent from Travelers 6/4/2015.
Thank you for
your recent inquiry through the Revdex.com...

(Revdex.com).  We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
Please accept our
apologies for the delay you experienced with your cancellation request.  We pride ourselves on delivering an
exceptional customer experience and regret not meeting those expectations for
you. 
We received the
signed cancellation request and a copy of the title; however, the title did not
reflect an exact date and was not easily legible. 
Based on the
additional information you have provided, along with the documentation we
received on April 9th, I have processed the cancellation request
effective July 30, 2014.  I updated your
mailing address to the address noted above and you can expect to receive a
refund check within the next 7-10 days under a
separate cover.  Unfortunately, we are
unable to credit the money back to your credit card due to [redacted] regulations.
Please feel free to contact me by phone (contact information was provided in the response letter).