Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company

I tried to file a claim and received a very rude representative. Then after doing all of the leg work like in the middle ages, the company refused to pay my claim because " their insured driver claimed to hit the other side of my car. " Well that's awful convenient isn't it.

Review: I recently had a claim into Acuity via a gas station car wash in Liberty MO. The claim number is PE5204 and the agent is [redacted] at ###-###-####. On February 13th 2016, I was taking my truck through a car wash insured by Acuity. There was a malfunction in the car was which caused the door to slam down on the top of my truck as I was entering in - following the green light prompt to do so. The door caused $2800 damaged to my truck (structural). The gas station advised me to get multiple car repair claims and car rental estimates and took full responsibility for it. They ensured me their insurance would take care of the damage.

Weeks after this happened, [redacted] contacted me to get info on what happened. I gave my side of the story and she had pictures of the damage and the estimates in hand. After following up with her days after she said she would call, she advised me Acuity was not going to cover the damages. Her reason was that the car was followed a "service/maintenance" schedule and were not liable...

An auto door on a car wash or garage door should have a safety sensor to stop the door from closing at all if there is an obstruction and it certainly should not have closed as hard as it did to damage the top frame.

The gas station manager [redacted] ###-###-#### wants the insurance to cover the damage. I feel [redacted] was rude and short with me on the phone making it clear she could care less about the incident and only trying to save Acuity the claim.Desired Settlement: To cover the cost to repair my truck and pay for the rental car while it is in the shop.

Business

Response:

Please be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, received the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] on March 11, 2016.ACUITY insures SM Trading Corporation and has coverage for their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. [redacted] is claiming his vehicle was damaged by our insured’s car wash. During the course of our investigation we spoke to [redacted] (SM Trading Corporation) and [redacted] (Overhead Door Company.). Our investigation revealed the door was bent inward and appears as though the door was hit while it was in the process of going up. Mr. [redacted] stated once the door was repaired it ran properly and the photo eyes functioned correctly. With this information, we did not feel our insured’s actions negligently caused damage to Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle.However, at the request of our insured (SM Trading Corporation), we have taken care of Mr. [redacted]’s damages. Enclosed is a copy of the property damage release signed by Mr. [redacted] and proof of payment.Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.Sincerely,[redacted]

Review: Adjuster came to our home to inspect storm damage. Roof on home/garage is missing shingles and has hail damage. Adjuster claims there is not enough storm damage to cover the deductible and that the shingles that are on the roof have had a lot of product concerns. He can not say that the damage is all storm or if it is due to product malfunction. So, he found some shingles that are the same as the "bad" ones on the house and wanted us to replace the damage with those? I have emailed my concerns to the adjuster and have gotten no response.Desired Settlement: New adjuster to re-evaluate the damage and fix per the policy.

Business

Response:

The insured has an ACUITY Homeowners 3-Special form policy ([redacted]) which insures “against risks of direct loss to property.” Coveredproperty losses are settled at a replacement cost value for that part of the building damaged for “like construction and use on the same premises.” However, we do not insure loss for, in part, for “Faulty, inadequate or defective: design, specifications, workmanship, repair…..materials used in repair, construction,renovation or remodeling.” The policy reads, in part, that we will “pay only that part of a covered loss which exceeds $1,000.” The insured reported a storm claim to ACUITY on 08/26/2015 with a reported storm date of 06/29/2015. I made same day contact with the insured. Aninspection of the insured’s home located at [redacted] was completed on 09/01/15. I met with the insured and theircontractor. The findings from this home inspection are as follows:This was a storm which came from the northwest and traveled southeast. The property is heavily covered by trees/tree limbs which face north and northwest. The home and detached garage have vinyl siding. I found multiple, focused mechanical indentations located along the west fascia of the home. These findings are notconsistent with hail damage. This is located above the west porch area. Inspection of the northwest facing wooden porch area revealed no evidence oflatent hail markings or splatter. Inspection of all exterior screens revealed no evidence of hail impact or, in fact, any hail splatter. Inspection of thehomes fascia revealed no evidence of hail damage or latent hail splatter. Organic growth and debris was found to be accumulated on the lower, north fascia. This organic growth and debris was not disturbed by this storm. There was no evidence of latent markings/splatter from hail contact. The insured’s chosen contractor drew my attention to a lower section of fascia on the north side of the home toward the back. The insured’s fascia is white in color. The contractor pointed to multiple dark grey spots on the fascia and said that it was "hail splatter." Of note, this area faces north and is quite shaded by the trees surrounding the northside of the home. It is my opinion that the dark grey spots were organic growth/mold accumulation. There is a detached three stall garage at the property. The west facing fascia on the garage shows no evidence of hail impact or damage. There is notable debris and dirt present on the fascia, none ofwhich is disturbed. The detached garage had a significant wood pile on the east side. The siding in this area showed several mechanical locations of damagewhich is not consistent with hail. The wood is piled directly onto the east facing the siding. While present at the property, I observed a large garbage truckarrive and remove trash from a large, industrial, trash container. The container is also located on the east side of the garage. The south side of thegarage has an entry door. This door is wooden and painted. I observed no hail impressions or latent evidence of hail splatter on the paint or wood. On the south side of the garage, which is the direction which the garage doors face, I observed multiple pink chalk markings where the contractor had marked prior to my arrival. The contractor stated that he marked all of the hail damage. Of note, these were on the south side of the garage. The garage also has approximately a two foot eve. None of the markings that I observed were consistent with hail. Of important note, one of the indentations which the contractor marked and said was hail had scratch marks impressed in the indentation and these scratch marks removed some of the paint on the south facing fascia. Linear and vertical marking was present as well. Both are not consistent with hail, but rather mechanically caused. One marking, on closer inspection, also had scratch markings but also had a residualfragment/splinter of wood. There was a second marking which also had a residual fragment/splinter of wood. The insured was present during the inspection andconversation with the contractor. I showed the insured what the contractor was saying was hail and the insured stated that it could be from his childrenthrowing acorns. I looked down on the ground and saw that there were several dozen acorns on the ground. There is a small detached building toward theeast section of the property. This is the building on the property which is the most exposed to the elements. This has a wooden and painted fascia. That fascia showed no evidence of hail damage, latent hail splatter markings, or recent removal of paint. Inspection of the garage roof revealed the roof to have a CertainTeed fiberglass shingle product, architectural in style. The south slope showed significant installation issues which were identified, marked and photographed. The eve of the south slope had approximately two shingles missing. Closer inspection showed the underlayment to be weathered and the roofs plywood was soft. The east slope showed this same installation issue pattern. This shingle had a significant amount of crazing and there are multiple areas where gaps have formed in theshingle. These are not storm related but rather a widely known product defect and manufacturing issue. In addition, there were multiple areas of thermalcracking present. I was unable to identify a single hail strike on any section of ridge, the most vulnerable to hail. After inspecting the entire roof, I wasable to identify two potential hail hits on the shingle. Inspection of the residence roof revealed the identical product defect and manufacturing issues present on the shingles. I inspected the metal valleys and located no evidence of hail impressions. Two of the metal valleys each had a single distinct crease which was not consistent with hail and in the opposite direction of this storm. After inspecting the entire roof, I was able to identify a single hail hit. After completion of the inspection, I met with insured and contractor and explained my inspection findings. The maximum number of shingles needed to address the property damage to the insured’s home is five. To assure the shingles were available; I completed an on-site test of the insured’s shingle and forwarded my test findings to [redacted] is an unbiased and independent testing laboratory which determines like kind and quality material and finds matching replacement materials. The [redacted] report (Control Number: [redacted]) wasreceived and reviewed. The insured’s shingle was identified as a CertainTeed New Horizon, Horizon Blue in color and was available through Discounted Materials, Inc. The shingles needed to affect the repair are on hold for the insured through 10/03/15. I completed a repair estimate which accounted for the materials cost and labor to affect the needed repair. This estimate total was $562.48.I followed up with the insured on 09/03/2015 by phone. I provided the insured with a detailed explanation of my inspection and inspection findings. The insured communicated to me that she understood. I explained the ITEL Laboratory, Inc. testing, the report findings and that the shingles necessary to affect the repair have been identified, located, and reserved. I explained to the insured that the estimate to affect the repairs is less than their deductible. The insured stated that she understood. On 09/03/2015, I emailed the insured and thanked them for allowing me the opportunity to inspect their beautiful home. I attached a copy of my completed estimate and the [redacted] report. I explained to the insured that the shingles necessary to affect the repairs to the home have been reserved through 10/03/15. I explained the cost of the materials and directed their attention to the [redacted] report for instructions on how they may secure theshingles. I explained also that the cost of repair to the home falls below their $1,000 deductible and that I would be closing the claim. I invited the insuredto contact me with any questions.There has been no contact by the insured to ACUITY which has not been responded to. ACUITY is always available to our customers and would invite the insured to contact me with any questions or concerns they have.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.First of all, "understanding" does not me the same as "agree". The adjuster went into the reasoning of why Acuity would not pay for the roof but I did not agree with the outcome. And I did follow up directly with the adjuster via email ( on Sept 14) and did not get a response. My rates continue to increase each year with 0 claims and when I actually have a legitimate claim I get the resolution of fixing it myself with "defective" shingles that he claims is why there is damage to begin with.

Regards,

Review: I was injured at a restaurant that Acuity insures. I ate a foreign object in my food that caused a broken tooth. I filed a report and a few weeks later, Acuity contacted me with some forms to fill out. I filled the required forms and sent them back. A few days passed without me hearing anything from the adjuster. I then proceeded to call, and left a message on voice mail stating that I was checking on the status of the paperwork that was sent days prior. When I finally received a callback the adjuster told me that the paperwork was received and that I needed to send any bills that were related to the injury and I would be reimbursed for those. So I send the bill to the adjuster. A few days pass and I get an email from the adjuster saying that a reimbursement check was issued. In a reply email I asked about compensation for the permanent damage to my otherwise perfect teeth, at which time He stated that as soon as all the bills were sent, we would talk about injury settlement. It has been about 3 days since the last bill was sent. I have emailed the adjuster on several occasions with no response.Desired Settlement: I would like to speed this process up. Get done and be done!

Business

Response:

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.

Review: Acuity insurance is denying us full reimbursement on our GMC Sonoma truck that was hit head on by their insured. Pictures of the accident scene clearly show their insured completely on the wrong side of the road with the collision completely a frontal head on collision. Our son had 3 options, honk his horn and apply his breaks (which he did), jump up onto the sidewalk (which he did not do) or veer into the lane of oncoming traffic (which he also did not do). The other driver's (Acuity's insured)first statement after the accident was that he did not see our truck until he looked up. Acuity admitted their driver was at fault, but assigned us 10% fault and is refusing to reimburse us the full value of our totaled truck which they valued at $2,302. The determination of our son's percentage of fault was made immediately after Acuity was informed that there would be no subrogation because we only carry liability on our truck. We have been without the use of our truck for four months now and do not have the money to replace it. We are simply asking for full reimbursement for an accident our son was unable to avoid. The policewoman's comment after I called her was that it was "very clear who was at fault in that accident and that she wished the insurance company wasn't doing that."Desired Settlement: Full remibursment from Acuity in the amount of $2,302 for the loss of our vehicle upon receipt of which we will turn over the title of the vehicle to Acuity

Business

Response:

This letter will represent our response to your letter of May 21, 2014 regarding the above mentioned matter.

Our office had received a total of three complaints written by [redacted]. Those being to the State of Wisconsin - [redacted] and the [redacted]’s office. We made a business decision after the third complaint to go ahead and reimburse the vehicle owner at 100% given the amount being withheld for comparative fault was only $187.40. The claim was therefore resolved on April 25, 2014 for the full amount of $2302.00.

Below is how we had responded to each of the other complaints; we wanted to share that with your office so you knew how we investigated the claim and had come to our initial decision.

We advised each of the other offices as follows:

This claim involves a motor vehicle accident where our insured’s 22 year old son, [redacted] was a driver of his parent’s 1996 Mercury. The other vehicle driver was Mrs. [redacted]’s son, [redacted]. Who was driving a 1995 GMC. We conducted an investigation into the facts of this accident, which included talking with both drivers, obtaining the police report and the review of vehicle photos, scene photos and a diagram of the loss location. Based on all that information we determined that our insured was the majority at fault and advised the vehicle owner that we were accepting

I had Acuity car insurance through Wright Insurance when I received my new policy my insurance went up when I asked the repersintive why itwas going up his reply was "well you have to pay for uninsured drivers " Auctally I'am glad because now I'm with a company that does care. Thank You for your time.

I was involved in an auto accident with an Acuity customer, the accident was her fault witch she acnokledged . When I tried to get an adjuster to check the damage I was told they don't use adjusters except totaled vehicle. So I have to take off work to get an estimate. I was told burden of proof is on me even though the accident wasn't. I should be compensated for time from work as well as rental car expences

"One of the rudest companies we have dealt with" - Enterprise Rent-a-Car employees
"They gave me no information" - Independent insurance adjuster
"We'll probably wait two weeks for a reply again" - Body repair shop
These are just a few quotes from people involved in this experience with Acuity. There was an accident in which Acuity claimed liability. I had no vehicle for a week and a half after the accident because neither I or my insurance could get ahold of them. They finally called me back one Friday around 6pm and said they were claiming liability and sent a claim number [redacted] to Enterprise for a rental car.
I was in the rental vehicle for about two weeks with no contact from Acuity despite numerous calls and voicemails. I started the process of getting estimates for damage to my vehicle (as Acuity has told me to do in our initial conversation) and my body repair shop could not get ahold of anyone either. Acuity eventually sent out an independent claims adjuster. The adjuster said Acuity had given him no information, he didn't know if he was looking at flood, hail, etc or a wreck. He didn't know they had claimed liability either. He said he had never experienced such a lack of information.
Another couple weeks went by without being able to get ahold of them. Me, Enterprise and my body repair shop had no luck. Enterprise called me and said Acuity called them and said no one on their end had filed liability paperwork or told me to get in a rental car. The Enterprise manager was able to get ahold of them and figure things out. Another week went by without any call backs before they informed me my truck was a total loss. They sent payment and last day'd my rental car less than 24 hours after I received a check, which would have left me without transportation to work. Acuity and I never agreed on a last day for rental, they only last day'd me via the ARMS system with Enterprise. Enterprise called me (on the last day) and informed of this.
I called until I was able to talk to a person (not the person handling this claim number) and asked why they last day'd me so quick. I was informed that "after we issue payment we don't cater to your transportation needs." An argument ensued and I was able to extend the rental vehicle another 24 hours. I called back the next day and spoke with [redacted], who was the person handling the claim number. She extended it another 24 hours but refused to give any more.
This situation lasted about a month and a week from accident to turning the rental car in. Between the payment issue for my vehicle and the rental costs they paid Acuity could have fixed my truck and come out with a $500 profit. The people I spoke with at Acuity were always brash, rude to me and those who contacted them on my behalf. They did not take (obvious) liability for over a week and gave me less than a day to find new transportation. Acuity never once spoke with my insurance company despite my agent calling twice a day for a week and a half.
Their website claims to be the 90th best insurance company in the United States and I cannot imagine there being more than 91. I would not recommend this company to anyone regardless of their insurance situation and feel sorry for anyone who interacts with them in the future.

I got in an accident at a round about do to the other driver failing to yield the right of way. which is acknowledged in the police report. but the best the could give me was %50 percent of the damages. when it was all her fault! not to mention they never returned any of my phone calls. I had to talk to at least 4 different people. and they told me it would take them 30 days to get the police report! I called my insurance company and they told me they'd have it in a week which they did! THEY HAD HORRIBLE CUSTOMER SUPPORT. if I ever leave my insurance company I would NEVER go to acuity for the way I was treated!

Review: Home Owners Insurance Company refuses to pay for damage to my roof covered by a storm during my policy period. They gave two different accounts of denial even after the appeal and have not assisted or given information on the next step. Senior field representative [redacted] has ignored information, used false weather data to deny claim and has failed to speak with those we have included in resolving this issue. She is rude, unprofessional and should not work for an A.M. Best A+ Rated company. She still despite seeking legal action and filing a dispute with the Dept of Insurance has not picked up the phone for us to resolve this issue or rightful enforced our policy upon purchase of our home. Company has just taken our money monthly but not helped us one bit in the right or truthful manner. [redacted] can be reached at ###-###-####Desired Settlement: Repair my roof according to the terms of my homeowners policy in correlation with the information provided by multiple sources

Business

Response:

I am writing to

respond to the above-referenced complaint.

The allegations are contrary to the facts, as well as the information

provided to Acuity’s insured, [redacted].

After Acuity carefully reviewed the claim and information provided to

it, as well as hiring an independent architect who is a Haag Certified

Inspector, it was determined that the incident causing the subject damage

occurred outside of the relevant coverage period. Mr. [redacted] was provided information and the

reasons for the denial throughout the investigation process.

Review: On Aug. 15, 2014, I opened my online banking portal and discovered that my checking account was overdrawn. I quickly transferred money from a savings account to cover this charge. I then looked at the reason why and discovered that Acuity Insurance Co. had charged me 5 times that month. I tried to contact my insurance agent, but his office is closed on Fri. afternoons. So I then called [redacted] and they confirmed the mistake. 4 $190.43 charges had gone through my account and there was still one pending. The customer service representative at the bank, sent the pending one back and credited my account for 3 of the 4 $190.43 charges. On Mon. I contacted my insurance agent and he called Acuity to put back the mistaken charges. They put back only 2 of the 3 mischarged debits. I had tried to deal with Acuity directly by giving them my bank statement, but they kept insisting that they got one returned and it was one of the three charges. I, however got charged for 4 payments per my bank statement. So they still owed me one. on September 9th, they again charged me another payment of Sept. 11, 2014 I was charged for $262.35, which my bank rejected because Acuity had not dealt with the previous month's overcharge. At this point I had wasted too much time trying to deal with this situation and I decided at my banks suggestion to cancel the policy and look for new insurance. So, I did just that. Acuity then sent the cancellation notice of Oct. 1, 2014. They said billing to follow. Okay, so they sent me the bill on Oct. 1 saying that I still owed from Aug. 22, 2014 through Oct. 1, the amount of $325.77. I figured this to be a fair charge for the 5 wks. so I paid it. Thinking it was finally over.... Wrong again, I received another letter from them today (dated Oct. 22, 2014), stating thank you for my payment of $325.77 and a collection payment notice that I still owed $380.86. I was livid. I called my agent and she said that when she called them, they wanted their money back from the 2 $190.43 payment that they had refunded me???? They should not have taken it to begin with. I believe them to be highly incompetent and radically encourage other consumers to stay away from Acuity. Thank God I did not have any accidents when I was insured with them. Please, maybe you can get them to make some sense of all this, I for one am very displeased.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

This policy was issued new on 5/5/2014. The insured's 3rd installment of $223.33 was returnedfrom her bank for insufficient funds on 7/14/14. The policy cancelled on 7/29/14. The insuredmade an online payment for $47.80 and the underwriter agreed to reinstate the policy. Theagent requested that the policy be set up on Electronic Funds with new bank information. Thepolicy reinstated.The mistake on ACUITYs part came when policy was reinstated and set up on EFT. The policywas behind in payments and the incorrect number of installments were set up. Fourwithdrawals were attempted from the insured's bank. One of the four was returned as anunsuccessful payment. We were given documentation showing 3 were successful. We thenreturned 2 of the three to the insured's account to correct the mistake. The insured and agentwere notified of the situation. ACUITY kept one of the installments as one was due. After wereturned the $380.86 (2 of the 3 payments) we were notified that the insured had stopped payon those 2 installments that we returned.The insured lapsed for non-pay. Since the insured placed a stop payment on the two paymentsrequested in error, the refund for the two payments is due back to ACUITY.Please find the attached documentation that we received from the insured showing thepayments and the summary showing that we returned these payments. This was prior to herstopping payment on the payments. The agent requested a new bank statement to verify thatshe received the refunds from ACUITY and she refused.We are now billing the insured for the return of the refund. The insured had insurance 5/6/14 to10/1/14. Please let us know if we should send a copy of explanation to insured again.

In the day and age of websites and apps...this company looks like they haven't updated their website in 15 years. You are literally unable to do anything besides file a claim, and look over your policy. They are closed on the weekends, and only the claims department is open. So if you want to add a vehicle, update information, or general questions, you have to wait til Monday. By far, the worse customer service or lack of, I've dealt with in years.
UPDATE YOUR SYSTEM! Geico and other companies allow you to do just about anything from their mobile app.

I have had Acuity insurance for 3 years on my Trucks and for workmans comp.They are constantly sticking me saying I owe them more money for whatever reason they can come up with. I am currently being extremely over charged already. With promises every year that my rates will go down. This last year I added 3 trucks and and 1 more employee and my annual rates almost doubled. Now the are trying to get an extra $7264.00 for air again. As a result of one of their audits. I have never missed a payment with Acuity and everyone got paid what the set payments were set at by the agent. Now they are saying I owe the past agency more money. when the agent I was dealing with had left the agency 3 months before acuity even knew it. She switched agencies in December and was quoting me through another agency in February, Acuity themselves recommended for me to switch agents. I have done everything they ask and I will let it all go before I pay anything extra especially to an agency that wasn't even involved in the last 3 months of the year.

Review: I have an open medical case involving my lower back,feet and possibly more.My insurance policies including Medicare requires that any back and feet related issues are to be billed to my case(work Comp)etc.This includes all pain clinics and medications provided relating to my injuries.I have been asked to supply all info needed to proceed with payment of out of pocket expenses,480.00 for pain medication.I have given all that I can and have given info they have already and then some.Why must I go through this to get what I am entitled.She keeps telling me they need more and that is wrong,they have all they need!!.They even closed my case before and could not submit to my clinic for billing,so I used my regular ins to pay for services.Please help me get my out of pocket back.Mrs V[redacted] stopped relating with me.Desired Settlement: I just want my out of pocket monies reimbursed to me to( ly6873).

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted]'s claim was settled and the file was closed on 7-16-13. The injuries were his low back and feet and the medical was open subject to our defenses. On 4-21-15 I received a voice message from Mr. [redacted] stating he understood his claim was closed. I returned his call and he stated he went to [redacted] and they told him his file was closed. He said he used his health insurance to pay for the treatment. He filed for medicare part a and applied for part b and his health insurance shut him down now that he is on medicare. He was getting injection in his neck and back and the prescriptions were $470.00 per month. He is also diabetic but understood I would not be paying for that medication. Acuity is not responsible for his neck issues.Mr. [redacted] was represented by [redacted] and I recommended he call him for advice. He said he did but the attorney never got back to him.I have sent the file for an Independent Medical Evaluation which will be done on 7-8-15 to obtain a second opinion as to whether the present condition is related to the 2009 injury. If it is related I will be reimbursing Mr. [redacted] for his out of pocket expenses.

Business

Response:

Under MN Statute 176.155 Subd 1 The injured employee must submit to examination by the employer's physician upon the employer's request in order to prevent termination of benefits. As stated in my previous responses if the doctor finds the present complaints related to the original injury which occurred on 5-11-2009 Acuity will be responsible for treatment. If Mr. [redacted] refuses to attend the examination on 7-8-15 benefits will terminate until he decides to attend an exam.The proper venue to go thru for any disputes on a Worker's Compensation Claim is the Division of Labor and Industry. Their phone number is ###-###-####. Mr. [redacted] may want to consider talking to someone in the Department to have his questions answered. The reason for the second opinion is to determine causation of Mr. [redacted]'s present complaints.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

I had just purchased a house on 6/4. Acuity threatened to drop my homeowners insurance because of multiple problems that did not exist on my house,such as; shingles and gutters falling off, lack of porch railing, porch and stairs needing railings and repair. The insurance agent sent me pictures of "my" house. Their inspector had inspected the wrong house- a dilapitated white duplex that did not at all fit the description I gave the agent when I signed on with Acuity. (My brown brick 2 story 1 family is beautiful without a shingle out of place) I have had multiple stressors within the last month ( surgery last week, a divorce last month). I felt so screwed over. This huge mistake- uncalled for. I should have been offered a discount or something more than a weak apology. I do not trust them or feel secure with them.

I have had no issues with getting assistance making a claim that was ultimately paid by the other parties insurance. There prices are the best I have found without having the negative reviews on their customer service. My only complaint is there is a report done for all insurance companies that can black ball you from other insurance companies and the claim I made that ultimately was completely paid for by the other insurance was listed on that report along with a payout amount of $0 but being on that report many insurance companies would refuse to insure me for several years - that is more of an issue with what all these insurance companies have collectively agreed to do with this shared resource they have created.

Review: My husband and I hired a local contractor to landscape our new construction home in March of 2015. The contractor is insured by Acuity. The Insured and his company employees drove heavy machinery over our concrete driveway for several weeks which resulted in substantial driveway damages estimated at $16,200 to replace. This lead to ACUITY Insurance Claim # [redacted].

The Insured testified to Acuity that our driveway was not cracked before he started the landscaping work. The Insured’s company was retained to clear the snow off our driveway all winter with his Ford F250 Truck/plow which he did without causing concrete damage. Next the Insured argued that because his truck and plow didn’t do damage, that his John Deere 323E track loader couldn’t have caused the cracks during the landscaping project, claiming both the Ford truck and the Deere track loader are the same weight. When my husband researched the weight difference of the two machines in spec documents, he found a fully loaded JD323E is 4500-6000 lbs. heavier than a Ford F250 truck. The skid loader was also driving over the edges of our concrete, which is where the cracks and broken parts are located.

The Insured also admitted in writing in a text to us that his machines did the damage. This was also submitted to Acuity. However, the Insured told Acuity he felt our concrete was defective and should not crack under the pressure of his 12,500 pound machine driving over it for weeks. We submitted many detailed photographs outlining the path of the Insured’s machines paralleling our damaged areas to Acuity in support of our claim. Acuity plays games, and they’ve changed their strategy regularly as each new offer is presented to us. First, Acuity offered $600 stating there wasn’t enough proof that their Insured caused the damage, although he admitted to it in writing. After we declined, a new offer was made of $1500, still a fraction of the damages caused. This time, Acuity claimed our new driveway was comprised of defective concrete. Then, my husband and I requested that Acuity conduct an engineering report of our concrete PSI strength from an independent testing lab to prove our concrete is “faulty”. That’s when Acuity dropped that strategy and moved to their most recent “final offer” of $3000 claiming the Insured did indeed cause only one of the 7 damaged driveway sections with his machines. I requested the adjuster’s notes and a clearly outlined written statement as to why Acuity believes their Insured damaged just 1 section. I have heard nothing from them in a month.

Acuity’s claim agents, [redacted] and [redacted], are rude and condescending in their telephone communications. On 8/10/15 [redacted], an Acuity agent, flippantly directed me to get a lawyer and sue Acuity if I expected more than their $3000 settlement offer. Acuity was warned in writing months ago that their lowball offers are unacceptable and that we’d contact the Revdex.com and the [redacted] for assistance if there was no resolution of the disputed claim. An official complaint has been filed with the [redacted] and the Acuity agents were cc’d directly on the email. The Acuity agents both received a direct reply from [redacted], so they won’t be able to claim they are not aware of the complaint.

I am aware that it’s unlawful for an insurer like Acuity to underpay claims. Insurers can’t compel a claimant to hire an attorney in order to be paid what they are owed. Iowa is a punitive damage state, meaning, if Acuity forces us to meet them in court they could face paying additional damages and all the attorney fees. Acuity can settle this claim by working with us and providing reasonable payment for damages caused by their Insured, or, they may present a detailed report with clear evidence as to why their lowball offers are acceptable. Again, we have written admission by their insured that his machines caused the damages.

~[redacted]Desired Settlement: Pay ACUITY Insurance Claim # [redacted]

Business

Response:

Please be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, received the complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] on September 3, 2015.ACUITY insures [redacted]’s Four Season Yard Care and has coverage for their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] hired our insured to do landscaping and put in a retaining wall. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]’ home was a newer construction. During the course of our insured’s work damage was found to the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] state our insured is the sole cause of this damage as in order to complete his work he had to drive his vehicles and equipment across the driveway.Our insured did drive on the [redacted]’s driveway. However, after taking statements from Mr. [redacted] and our insured, we had the driveway inspected and it was determined our insured’s actions were not the cause of the damage to the driveway.Our investigation showed there were several issues with the concrete? When the driveway was installed it was not tamped properly. This is evident by the air holes at the surface which the contractor covered up with a trowel. Improper tampering could affect the strength of the concrete.? Industry standards for a driveway thickness are no less than 4 inches thick. The [redacted]’s driveway is only 3.5 inches thick? The cracks to the driveway are typical with settling? The concrete in the [redacted]’s back patio is also settling and cracking in a similar fashion as the drivewayThe inspection showed one isolated area of the driveway which was cracked at the corner. There is a possibility this type of damage could have been caused by our insured. In an attempt to resolve the claim with the [redacted]’s we extended a compromise offer of $600 on June 30, 2015 to replace one of the 10x10 sections of concrete. The [redacted]’s did not agree with our scope of damages and ACUITY increased out offer to $3,000 on July 16, 2015. ACUITY is still willing to resolve the [redacted]’s claim for $3,000 in exchange for a release of liability.Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] suggest that ACUITY has switched adjusters as a stall tactic. The claim was originally assigned to Monica Trott. Mrs. Trott remained the primary adjuster on the file until it was assigned to me on August 5, 2015. The claim transfer was solely due to a staffing matter and was in no way a stall tactic.We spoke to Mrs. [redacted] on August 10, 2015 and discussed our $3,000 offer. Mrs. [redacted] stated she did not agree with our offer and asked what the next step was to get the claim settled. She was informed that would be her decision. She stated she did not know how to proceed and that is why she was asking. She was informed that she could handle it several different ways and I could not give her that advice. It would be her decision if she wanted to accept our offer, turn it into her insurance to subrogate us, or pursue other actions to remedy the driveway issues.The [redacted]’s also stated that our insured admitted his machine caused the damage. It should be noted the only documentation provided by the [redacted]’s which show our insured admitted to causing the damage was a text message which states “know my loader did do a little damage but that’s from a poor contractor and that’s out of my control. I will call insurance company tomorrow and they will deal with it.” This text cannot be seen as an admission of guilt as our insured is clearly addressing the poor work which was performed by the contractor who did the driveway. Our insured disputes their negligent actions caused the damage that the [redacted]’s are claiming.Enclosed are photos of the driveway and patio. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.Sincerely,Kyle [redacted]Senior Claims Representative[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

This is our final Revdex.com rebuttal regarding [redacted] as no resolve is coming from our communicationthread. All parties involved can agree to disagree. I have no further questions for ACUITY.We dispute ACUITY’s insured used our driveway for its intended use. A driveway is designed to drive upfrom the approach toward the garage, and then back down toward the approach to meet the road. It isnot designed for back and forth driving across the driveway’s edges, let alone using fully loaded heavymachinery. We didn’t know [redacted] was going to operate his machines in this manner or we would nothave hired him. The fact remains [redacted] did not have to be on our driveway to complete the work, he didso to save time and costs.We didn’t choose our concrete contractor, our builder did, and we were given no options. We recentlyrelocated from across the country and knew no contractors, and have no biases. The bid for the othercontractor was presented because ACUITY’s insured, [redacted], said he’d have the concrete fixed for us outof his pocket (before deciding to turn his damages into ACUITY). The bid from [redacted] was [redacted]’scontractor recommendation for the company he wanted to use for our repairs.ACUITY is wrong that we’re unhappy with our contractor, and ACUITY continues to make up randominformation such as we are using a different contractor to achieve better quality and thicker concrete.We were not soliciting a bid for thicker concrete. A typical 2x4 form will have a nominal 3 ½ inch height,because the actual size of 2x4 dimensional lumber is 1 ½ inches by 3 ½ inches. It is our expectation thatthe bid provided by [redacted] would use the same 2x4 forms as [redacted] did to achieve a 3 ½inch thick pour.This being said, we’re fine to have [redacted] come and redo the work to the specifications it was priorto [redacted] starting the job. This includes removal and replacement of all the cracked sections per the scopeof work outlined in the bid we submitted from [redacted]. We have no probem if ACUITY wishes todirectly hire [redacted], we don’t need monetary compensation in hand. We do need our drivewayrestored in all cracked sections.ACUITY continues to use terms such as “feel” without backing up their feelings with facts. Four Seasonsdamaged our driveway and we should not have to be dealing with all the red tape and difficulty broughtforth by the actions of ACUITY’s insured. We will contact ACUITY directly after we determine our nextcourse of action.[redacted] and [redacted]

Business

Response:

Please

be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance

Company, received the latest Revdex.com complaint from Mr. and Mrs.

[redacted] on October 2, 2015. As

you are aware from our previous correspondence, ACUITY insures [redacted]’s Four Season Yard Care and has coverage for

their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. and

Mrs. [redacted] hired our insured to do landscaping and install a retaining

wall. During the course of work, damage

was found to the driveway. Mr. and Mrs.

[redacted] state our insured is the sole cause of this damage, as in order to

complete his work he had to drive his vehicles across the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] state ACUITY is making claims based on what we “feel” and not the facts. As previously stated, it is ACUITY’s position the driveway was being

put to its intended use by our insured.

Our inspection indicates the driveway contractor was negligent for

faulty installation. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]

have not provided any evidence to support our insured’s action was the proximate

cause of the damages. As stated in previous correspondence, ACUITY feels our insured’s actions were

not the reason the driveway cracked. However, in an effort to settle a disputed

claim, we conceded to a crack in section 20 of the driveway. ACUITY has

offered $3,000 to settle the claim. At

this time, this offer remains open to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. Should you have any

questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this

matter.

Review: We were a former customer of Acuity for our G&L insurance. Our yearly premium was paid in full. As is standard practice we had an insurance audit. As a result of this audit we were hit with an additional $1250 charge and no explanation. When I wrote to Acuity about this, he wrote back that it was because they assert that my role changed and that instead of doing sales and administrative work, I was performing field work with my crews (we do construction). Nothing could be further from the truth and there is no data to support this. In fact we have plenty of supporting data to show that I performed primarily sales. I presented this information to Acuity and they have failed to respond directly to me. Instead they have engaged collection activities.Desired Settlement: I would like this issue to go away. I would also like someone at Acuity who is both senior level and principled to acknowledge that they have made a mistake and to correct it, instead of exerting the brute force that a billion dollar company has the capacity to do.

Business

Response:

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.

Consumer

Response:

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 2014 (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 materials.... he also made a mistake with my activities.I put on over 22,000 miles on my personal vehicle during this period visiting with clients. I 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 1099 subcontractor status. There were also no sales people on payroll. A simple analysis would show that with increasing sales, someone has to be pulling the business in. With 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 $28,600. 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 $28,600 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 7/13-7/14 period. If that is the case then why did they not increase the insurance basis in 7/12-7/13 by the $28,600 as they had done last year? The insurance premium based on payroll for the 7/12-7/13 period was about $1200 less then in the 7/13-7/14 period. Acuity had incorrectly billed us $5200 for the 7/12-7/13 period. They recognized there mistake after the audit and cut us a check for $1400. The premium in 7/13-7/14 was based on the previous annual period and we paid this amount of $3800 in full. It was then that the provided us with another $1250 bill which we vehemently dispute.

I had homeowner insurance with this company for years. There was a wind storm that did some damage to the outside of the home. When applying for the claim I was told that there was no wind damage, however other homeowners in the same community receive new roof and mind was worst than their. It was because the roof had three layers and the Acuity did not want to replace it, when they knew that when they insured the home. They also cancel my insurance. Money paid to this company for nothing. Find another insurance company!

When they pay out for an accident they are horrible at that. I had hospital bills, and they went to collections and I still had a hard time getting them to pay the bills. The person handling my case wanted me to get my bills on certain forms for them, which the hospital does not do for the public, only for Dr.'s and insurance agents, but they had to call for the bill. He would not pay the bills unless they were on this form, but he was lazy and did not make any calls, so they were not going to pay my hospital bills. I am still dealing with the fall out from him not paying the bills 1 and 1/2 years later. At least 1 collection company maybe 2. I do not know which bills he paid and which one he did not pay; I thought they were all paid until the calls started coming in. The company is a joke.