September 21, Revdex.com of Central Indiana N Delaware Street #Indianapolis, IN 46204- RE: Complaint ID# [redacted] Insured: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: [redacted] Storage Dear Sir or Madame, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 18, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC, which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Ms [redacted] chose to enroll and was listed as a certificate holder under this policy Bader received notice of her claim on September 7, 2017, at which time we obtained a written statement of loss from Ms [redacted] via our web portal regarding water damage to her property stored at [redacted] Storage in [redacted] **, unit number *** On September 12, 2017, Bader mailed Ms [redacted] a Reservation of Rights letter to inform her that Bader is currently investigating whether coverage under the Summary of Coverage applies to this occurrence, specifically by a covered event Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms [redacted] was issued, it reads in part: What Is Not Covered: We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the followingH Loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or notAs indicated to Ms [redacted] in our reservation of rights letter, Bader is continues to investigate this claim to determine if coverage exists under the Summary of Coverage There may be other reasons why coverage does not apply Bader specifically reserved all of our rights and remedies including the right to deny coverage and defend against this claim for any other valid reason which may exist under the terms and conditions of the Summary of Coverage or as revealed by further investigation and informationNo waiver or estoppel of any kind is inferred On September 18, 2017, Ms [redacted] called and spoke with a Bader policy services representative She stated that Bader advertised that it covered water damage and she received a letter stating her property would not be covered This is incorrect The letter Ms [redacted] references was the reservation of rights letter The reservation of rights letter is not a settlement or denial of Ms [redacted] ’s claim, but was sent to inform her that her claim is currently under investigation Due to rainfall of to inches the San Jacinto River flooded the area where the storage facility is located Bader has engaged an independent adjuster to inspect her unit and to determine how the water entered Ms [redacted] ’s unit aside from rising flood watersWe do not yet have the report from our independent adjuster In her complaint, Ms [redacted] alleges she was required by [redacted] Storage to take out insurance coverage through BaderWhile the facility’s lease does require proof of insurance in order to rent a storage unit; it does not require that the insurance be purchased from Bader Company or any other specific company After all the facts of this claim have been reviewed Bader will rely on the summary of coverage to determine if the loss is payable If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached at (317) 706-or via e-mail at ad***@baderco.com Sincerely, Ana Lisa A***-D [redacted] VP Risk Management Bader Company
January 29, [redacted] Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate Holder: [redacted] Claim Number(s): [redacted] & [redacted] Policyholder: Lampe Management CompanyStorage Facility: American Flag Jacks Ford DriveDear Ms [redacted] ,Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 26, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by Mrs [redacted] These claims arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Lampe Management Company which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Mrs [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.The following is a detailed timeline for Mrs [redacted] ’ claims:• December 30, -Bader received notice of this loss, at which time a recorded statement of loss was taken from Mrs [redacted] • December 30, - Mrs [redacted] was emailed a Claim Kit letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim List for each claimHard copies of these documents were mailed the following day.• December 30, 2015- Bader requested the payment ledger, Incident Report and photos from the storage facility • January 5, – Bader received two Loss Notification Forms and Personal Property Claim Lists from Mrs [redacted] Mrs [redacted] called to confirm we had received her information and was advised we needed photos of the damaged property Mrs [redacted] advised the customer service representative that her husband sent the photos as a slide showMrs [redacted] was told that Bader did not receive the slide show • January 13, 2016- Bader received a copy of Mrs [redacted] ’s payment ledger, a letter from the facility manager concerning the incident and black and white distorted photos of some of Mrs [redacted] damaged property from the storage facility.• January 25, – Mrs [redacted] called Bader to check the status of her claim and was advised her file was pending She was again advised that Bader needed color pictures of her damaged property and stated she had resent themThe customer service representative advised Mrs [redacted] that Bader had no record of receiving the photos and asked her to resend them as the claim could not be processed without the photos.• January 25, – The adjuster assigned to Mrs [redacted] claim called her to review her claims and ask some additional questions concerning the damaged property He explained to Ms [redacted] Bader needed color photos of her damaged property The adjuster also asked her to indicate which items were damaged by water and which were damaged by rodents She agreed to send in the necessary information.• January 26, – Bader received color photos, a video of the damaged property, and copies of her previously submitted claim forms.• January 27, – The claims adjuster called Ms [redacted] to discuss a potential settlement of her claims• January 29, – Upon review of all information, the claims were amicably resolved and settled checks issued to Mrs [redacted] as follows: o Claim number [redacted] (water damage) -coverage limit of $2, o Claim number [redacted] (rodent damage) - $Mrs [redacted] ’s claims have been settled and her files are now closedIf I can be of any additional assistance, I can be reached (317) 706-or via email at [email protected],Anita A [redacted] VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
November 9, [redacted] Revdex.com of Central Indiana N Delaware Street #Indianapolis, IN 46204- RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate Holder: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Facility: [redacted] Dear Ms***, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Mr [redacted] is a certificate holder under this policy On August 9, 2016, Mr [redacted] ’s submitted a written statement of loss via our web portal On September 9th we obtained a manager’s statement regarding the loss and incident report On September 20, Bader obtained a copy of the police report and upon review of all information, the claim was denied that day.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based to on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following: Per Mr [redacted] ’s written sworn statement submitted on August 9, 2016, he had last been in his unit on August 5, On August 9, when he returned the locks on his unit were replaced with other(s), and he went to the facility office and had them cut those locks off After the unit was opened, he noticed that the contents of his unit were stolen.Per both the managers and Mr [redacted] ’s statement the locks on the unit in question did not belong to Mr [redacted] therefore, Mr [redacted] requested that the facility cut the locks Once the unit was open, it was then discovered that his property was missing Per the police report received on September 20, “Sometime between 8/5/at 14:hours and 8/9/at 10:hours unknown suspects cut the lock to bay Once inside the suspects removed the listed property ..” On September 20, a denial letter was mailed to Mr [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.On September 23, 2016, a reconsideration request was received via email from Mr [redacted] ’s son On October 3, 2016, a letter was sent to Mr [redacted] , stating that Bader had received his request for reconsideration and was reopening his file for review On October 20, 2016, a reconsideration denial letter was mailed to Mr [redacted] advising the denial was being upheld as there were no visible signs of forcible entry Based on the Summary of Coverage that Mr [redacted] was issued (see enclosed), only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss Please see the following: What is Covered: The following are additional coverages: A BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premisesThe mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entryTheft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary” What is Not Covered: We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: J Theft or unexplained disappearanceWhile not agreeing that Mr [redacted] ’s property loss claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, we are making a good faith effort to resolve his claim for $2, This will be issued to Mr [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me Sincerely, Anita A [redacted] VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:thanks so much.awesome company so grestful
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***
RE: Complaint ID#: *** Certificate Holder: *** ***
Policyholder: Life Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: Life Storage Solutions Dear Ms***, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by *** ***. Bader is the authorized agent to issue and administer the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (“PMAIC”) policy discussed below. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Life Storage Solutions LLC (“Life Storage”) by PMAIC which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to its tenants that choose to enroll. Dr*** was a certificate holder under this policy with an elected coverage amount of $2,Bader received notice of the loss on May 4, and conducted an investigation which resulted in a denial of the claim on May 12, 2017. The initial outcome of our investigation of Dr***’s claim was that the damages were caused by rodents; but there was ‘failure to protect her property’ as signs of rodents in her unit began in yet the claim was not filed until Bader received a reconsideration request from Dr*** on May 30, at which time the claim was reopened and reviewed by a different adjuster; however, but the determination remained the same and the denial was upheld on June 13, 2017. This determination was upheld on the belief that proper measures were not taken to preserve her property which resulted in further damage to the propertyHowever, without prejudice to any rights regarding this claim or any future claim, Bader has decided it will make a good faith effort to resolve Dr***’s claim. The claim has been reprocessed and a check issued for $2,(see enclosed copy). The check and settlement letter was mailed to Dr*** under separate coverAs to the increase in Dr***’s storage unit fees, Bader's involvement is limited to processing and adjudicating claimsBader does not have any other relationship with Life Storage or its employeesDr*** would need to contact Life Storage to inquire why her rent increasedWe appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matterIf I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely, Ana Lisa A*** VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
This insurance company wants to change the definition of burglary. Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny)For instance, under the common law definition of burglary, the crime had to take place in the dwelling house of another at night.Apparently they will only pay if the thieves make a hole in the wall or in the gateCutting my lock and replace it with another one so the office won't notice it is a burglary
Regards,
***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***
Dear Ms***,Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company ("Bader") to your letter dated August 29, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by *** ***.The claim arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ***,
which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enrollMs*** was a certificate holder under this policy.Bader received notice of the loss on August 19, 2016, at which time we obtained a recorded statement of loss from Ms***On August 19, 2016, Ms*** was e-mailed the Storage Claim Kit Letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim ListThese forms were also mailed the next dayOn August 28, 2016, Bader sent an outside adjuster from *** Claims Solutions to perform an inspection of the facility, located at *** *** ***, Baton Rouge, LA Upon receipt of the *** adjuster report, review of all information and for the reasons set forth below, the claim was denied on September 1, 2016.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following:* Per Ms***’ s statement on August 19, 2016, the loss occurred the day before.* Per the facility, on August 15, 2016, the area manager entered the facility to find to feet of standing water over the entire siteOnce the waters receded the facility employees escorted the tenants to their units to remove any salvageable itemsBMS then removed the remaining debris and sanitized the units.* Per Ms***’ s and the facility managers statement, the water entered her unit from a flood.* Per the *** Claims Adjusters’ report, there were no known damages to the loss location aside from those directly related to general condition of floodingThere was no evidence of any structural damage to the building or facility. All parties are in agreement that the water damage was caused by heavy rains that flooded the area. Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms*** was issued, the following is excluded from coverage:What Is Not Covered:We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: HLoss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or not. In her complaint, Ms*** alleges she had been informed that her insurance coverage would cover her property in the event of a burglary or unanticipated weather conditionsI am uncertain where that wrong information would have come fromI do not have a copy of the actual form she signed as the facility’s records were mostly destroyed in the floodHowever, that is incorrectAs set forth in the attached specimen enrollment form she would have signed when electing coverage; the brochure she would have been provided at the time of rental; and the Summary of Coverage that was mailed to her on June 19, to *** *** ***, *** *** *** *** damage(s) as a result of a flood are not covered causes of loss.Bader must rely on the summary of coverage to determine if a loss is payableWhile we do sympathize with Ms***’s loss of property, based on the facts of the loss and the provisions of coverage we must deny her coverage for this loss.If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached via e-mail at ad***@baderco.comSincerely,Anita A***VP, Risk Management
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[The day I say my storage unit in October I thought it was just the mattress and some debris that was in it so I sent the information to Brader and the pictures and they said they didn't cover itI followed all guidelines for a refund and Brader said it was coveredThe day I moved out of the unit I noticed the mess that was in there was bigger then just the mattressThe day I complained the company had work done to the building causing the wood and dirt and debris to fall into my unitWhen I placed my things in there it was not covered with dirt and I was made to get the insurance after I got the unitIt is not alright to pay for insurance to insure the safety of my belongings to have to throw out and clean things after I saw the extent of the dirt I called the Revdex.com because they would not compensate my things in OctoberWhy should I have to take a loss when it is their fault I didn't place my things in their to get dirty and I should not have had to trash or clean dirt and mold off my belongingsThis is not the first storage unit I've had and I don't appreciate the lack of help or respect I am getting.]Regards,*** ***
September 21, 2017 Revdex.com of Central Indiana 151 N Delaware Street #2020 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID# [redacted] Insured: ...
[redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: [redacted] Storage Dear Sir or Madame, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 18, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted]. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC, which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] chose to enroll and was listed as a certificate holder under this policy. Bader received notice of her claim on September 7, 2017, at which time we obtained a written statement of loss from Ms. [redacted] via our web portal regarding water damage to her property stored at [redacted] Storage in [redacted], unit number [redacted]. On September 12, 2017, Bader mailed Ms. [redacted] a Reservation of Rights letter to inform her that Bader is currently investigating whether coverage under the Summary of Coverage applies to this occurrence, specifically by a covered event. Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms. [redacted] was issued, it reads in part: What Is Not Covered: 2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following. H. Loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or not. As indicated to Ms. [redacted] in our reservation of rights letter, Bader is continues to investigate this claim to determine if coverage exists under the Summary of Coverage. There may be other reasons why coverage does not apply. Bader specifically reserved all of our rights and remedies including the right to deny coverage and defend against this claim for any other valid reason which may exist under the terms and conditions of the Summary of Coverage or as revealed by further investigation and information. No waiver or estoppel of any kind is inferred. On September 18, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called and spoke with a Bader policy services representative. She stated that Bader advertised that it covered water damage and she received a letter stating her property would not be covered. This is incorrect. The letter Ms. [redacted] references was the reservation of rights letter. The reservation of rights letter is not a settlement or denial of Ms. [redacted]’s claim, but was sent to inform her that her claim is currently under investigation. Due to rainfall of 30 to 40 inches the San Jacinto River flooded the area where the storage facility is located. Bader has engaged an independent adjuster to inspect her unit and to determine how the water entered Ms. [redacted]’s unit aside from rising flood waters. We do not yet have the report from our independent adjuster. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] alleges she was required by [redacted] Storage to take out insurance coverage through Bader. While the facility’s lease does require proof of insurance in order to rent a storage unit; it does not require that the insurance be purchased from Bader Company or any other specific company. After all the facts of this claim have been reviewed Bader will rely on the summary of coverage to determine if the loss is payable. If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached at (317) 706-6062 or via e-mail at ad[redacted]@baderco.com. Sincerely, Ana Lisa A[redacted]-D[redacted] VP Risk Management Bader Company
November 9, 2016 [redacted] Revdex.com of Central Indiana 151 N Delaware Street #2020 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate...
Holder: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Facility: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted], Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted]. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Mr. [redacted] is a certificate holder under this policy. On August 9, 2016, Mr. [redacted]’s submitted a written statement of loss via our web portal. On September 9th we obtained a manager’s statement regarding the loss and incident report. On September 20, 2016 Bader obtained a copy of the police report and upon review of all information, the claim was denied that day.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based to on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following: Per Mr. [redacted]’s written sworn statement submitted on August 9, 2016, he had last been in his unit on August 5, 2016. On August 9, 2016 when he returned the locks on his unit were replaced with other(s), and he went to the facility office and had them cut those locks off. After the unit was opened, he noticed that the contents of his unit were stolen.Per both the managers and Mr. [redacted]’s statement the locks on the unit in question did not belong to Mr. [redacted] therefore, Mr. [redacted] requested that the facility cut the locks. Once the unit was open, it was then discovered that his property was missing. Per the police report received on September 20, 2016 “Sometime between 8/5/16 at 14:00 hours and 8/9/16 at 10:00 hours unknown suspects cut the lock to bay 50. Once inside the suspects removed the listed property. …..” On September 20, 2016 a denial letter was mailed to Mr. [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.On September 23, 2016, a reconsideration request was received via email from Mr. [redacted]’s son. On October 3, 2016, a letter was sent to Mr. [redacted], stating that Bader had received his request for reconsideration and was reopening his file for review. On October 20, 2016, a reconsideration denial letter was mailed to Mr. [redacted] advising the denial was being upheld as there were no visible signs of forcible entry. Based on the Summary of Coverage that Mr. [redacted] was issued (see enclosed), only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss. Please see the following: What is Covered: 2. The following are additional coverages: A. BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premises. The mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entry. Theft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary”. What is Not Covered: 2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: J. Theft or unexplained disappearance. While not agreeing that Mr. [redacted]’s property loss claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, we are making a good faith effort to resolve his claim for $2,000. This will be issued to Mr. [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Anita A[redacted] VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
This company advertises it covers water damage therefore regardless of how the water damage occurred they are liable. Water damage is Water damage no matter how many ways this company denies they have to pay. Its not my fault there a couple of hundred other folks they are denying as well.[redacted] Storage required the tenets have insurance so pay up.
Regards,
[redacted]
January 29, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Claim Number(s): [redacted] &...
[redacted]Policyholder: Lampe Management CompanyStorage Facility: American Flag Jacks Ford DriveDear Ms. [redacted],Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 26, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by Mrs. [redacted]. These claims arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Lampe Management Company which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Mrs. [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.The following is a detailed timeline for Mrs. [redacted]’ claims:• December 30, 2015 -Bader received notice of this loss, at which time a recorded statement of loss was taken from Mrs. [redacted]. • December 30, 2015 - Mrs. [redacted] was emailed a Claim Kit letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim List for each claim. Hard copies of these documents were mailed the following day.• December 30, 2015- Bader requested the payment ledger, Incident Report and photos from the storage facility. • January 5, 2016 – Bader received two Loss Notification Forms and Personal Property Claim Lists from Mrs. [redacted]. Mrs. [redacted] called to confirm we had received her information and was advised we needed photos of the damaged property. Mrs. [redacted] advised the customer service representative that her husband sent the photos as a slide show. Mrs. [redacted] was told that Bader did not receive the slide show. • January 13, 2016- Bader received a copy of Mrs. [redacted]’s payment ledger, a letter from the facility manager concerning the incident and black and white distorted photos of some of Mrs. [redacted] damaged property from the storage facility.• January 25, 2016 – Mrs. [redacted] called Bader to check the status of her claim and was advised her file was pending. She was again advised that Bader needed color pictures of her damaged property and stated she had resent them. The customer service representative advised Mrs. [redacted] that Bader had no record of receiving the photos and asked her to resend them as the claim could not be processed without the photos.• January 25, 2016 – The adjuster assigned to Mrs. [redacted] claim called her to review her claims and ask some additional questions concerning the damaged property. He explained to Ms. [redacted] Bader needed color photos of her damaged property. The adjuster also asked her to indicate which items were damaged by water and which were damaged by rodents. She agreed to send in the necessary information.• January 26, 2016 – Bader received color photos, a video of the damaged property, and copies of her previously submitted claim forms.• January 27, 2016 – The claims adjuster called Ms. [redacted] to discuss a potential settlement of her claims. • January 29, 2016 – Upon review of all information, the claims were amicably resolved and settled checks issued to Mrs. [redacted] as follows: o Claim number [redacted] (water damage) -coverage limit of $2,000 o Claim number [redacted] (rodent damage) - $823.42 Mrs. [redacted]’s claims have been settled and her files are now closed. If I can be of any additional assistance, I can be reached (317) 706-60621 or via email at [email protected],Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
October 20, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Your Complaint ID#: [redacted] Our Claim Numbers: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Policyholder:...
[redacted]Storage Facility: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted],I am writing in response to your letter dated October 12, 2016 regarding the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted].The above referenced claims pertaining to this complaint arose from a [redacted] Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under their policy and elected $2,000 of coverage effective 1/28/2012.Bader conducted a thorough investigation of both of Ms. [redacted]’s claims and determined the facts to be as follows: • On September 9, 2013 Ms. [redacted] filed a claim for damaged property stored in unit 2084, claim number [redacted], with a date of loss of July 1, 2013. Bader received Ms. [redacted]’s incomplete claim documents on October 15, 2013. After several attempts to obtain the needed color photos of the damaged property being claimed, they were received on September 24, 2015, and the claim was settled that day for $120.13. o On October 18, 2016, Bader’s accounting department was contacted by Ms. [redacted] as she was attempting to cash the $120.13 settlement check dated September 24, 2015. As that check was valid only for 180 days, Ms. [redacted] was advised to return the check and a new one would be issued. • On September 25, 2015, Ms. [redacted] filed a second claim for damaged property stored in unit 2084, claim number [redacted], with the same date of loss, July 1, 2013, as her prior claim. Ms. [redacted] stated while vacating the unit on September 25, 2015 (she had not been to the unit since 2013) she discovered additional water damage, plus rodent damage to her property. She contacted the Manager to inspect the unit and disposed of most of the damaged items in the facility’s dumpster. Ms. [redacted]’s property was, apparently, left in the unit after the initial damages were discovered in 2013 and not reported in the original claim. The claim was denied on November 25, 2015, as the damages were not caused by a named peril and rodent damage is excluded under the Summary of Coverage. The SUMMARY OF COVERAGE that Ms. [redacted] was issued reads in part:What Is Insured: Your personal property, while it is in your unit, against losses from: 1. Fire; lightning; windstorm; hail; explosion; smoke; aircraft; vehicles; riot; civil commotion; vandalism; leakage from fire extinguishing equipment; sinkhole; collapse;volcanic action; breakage of building glass; falling objects; weight of snow, ice or sleet; water damage; earthquake. 2. Collapse of building caused by weight of rain or snow that collects on a roof.What Is Not Covered: 5. Neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property from further damage at and after the time of loss. 6. The policy will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following. B. Wear and tear, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, gradual deterioration, insects, vermin, or rodents.However, after further review of these claims, Bader has decided it will make a good faith effort to resolve Ms. [redacted]’s claims. The damaged property in both claims stemmed from the same July 1, 2013 date of loss and, therefore, are considered as one loss. A settlement check in the amount of $2,000, the coverage limit, was sent to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail (see attached).The original settlement checks for claim number [redacted] in the amount of $120.13 dated September 24, 2015 that was returned to our office by Ms. [redacted] was voided. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
June 2, 2015 [redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID#: ...
[redacted] Insured: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Storage Facility: Planet Self Storage - Washington Dear Ms. [redacted], Allow this to acknowledge receipt of your letter date June 1, 2015 regarding the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Storage Investment Management which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Bader received notice of the loss on April 7, 2015 and conducted an investigation which resulted in a denial of the claim on May 5, 2015. The initial outcome of our investigation concerning Ms. [redacted] claim was that the damage to her property was caused by surface water, which is not a covered loss. On May 28, 2015, Bader’s Claim Manager spoke with Ms. [redacted] son and obtained further information indicating that the loss was due to mold/mildew, which is a covered loss. As a result, and without prejudice to any rights regarding this claim or any future claim, Bader has made a good faith effort to resolve Ms. [redacted] claim. Specifically, the claim was reprocessed on May 28, 2015 and a check issued for $586.31 (see enclosed copy). The check and settlement letter were mailed to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Anita [redacted]Bader CompanyCompliance Manager
January 13, 2017[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Storage Facility: [redacted]...
[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted],Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 7, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.On November 19, 2016, Ms. [redacted] submitted a written statement of loss via Bader’s web claim portal. On December 12, 2016, Bader obtained a manager’s statement and an incident report regarding the loss. In addition, on December 22, 2016, Bader obtained a copy of the police report. Upon review of all information, the claim was denied January 3, 2017. Bader conducted a thorough investigation and determined the facts of the claim to be as follows: • Per Ms. [redacted]’s written statement submitted on November 19, 2016, she had last been in her unit on November 12, 2016. On November 17, 2016, she was notified by the facility manager that when he performed a lock check he discovered her unit was not locked or secured. When she arrived at the facility, that same day, she found that one of her two padlocks had been cut off and was missing. The second lock was still on the unit, but not secured. Upon entering the unit Ms. [redacted] discovered that some of her property was missing. • The facility manager’s incident report dated November 17, 2016 stated “I approached the tenants brother because he needed help after hours. He claimed that someone had broken into his unit and cut off his lock. I walked him to the elevator and proceeded to the unit. Tenant claims that there were two. The two called earlier in the day to a discovery while conducting the lock check. Unit 2205 was found locked open, which means that the lock was on the unit but the hasp itself was not closed the correct way therefore the unit can still be opened.” • On December 12, 2016, a claims processor obtained a recorded statement from the facility manager, Michael. The manager stated there are no cameras around this unit. Michael explained how the hasp works to open and securely close the unit with the lock and could not verify that there were two locks on the unit. He also noted that the marks visible on the hasp looked to be normal wear and tear. No other units reported missing property. • Per the police report filed in the name of [redacted] (Ms. [redacted]’s brother) “Unknown suspect used possible bolt cutter to gain entrance to the victim’s storage unit. Unknown suspect took the victim’s property and fled to an unknown location.” • On January 3, 2017, a denial letter was mailed to Ms. [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.Based on the Summary of Coverage that Ms. [redacted] was issued 6/01/2016, only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss. Please see the following: What is Covered:2. The following are additional coverages:A. BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premises. The mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entry. Theft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary”. What is Not Covered:2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following:J. Theft or unexplained disappearance.However, while not agreeing that Ms. [redacted]’s property damage claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, Bader is willing to make a good faith effort to resolve her claim. As such, the claim was reprocessed and a check in the amount of $1,500.00 will be sent to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover.We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
September 21, Revdex.com of Central Indiana N Delaware Street #Indianapolis, IN 46204- RE: Complaint ID# [redacted] Insured: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: [redacted] Storage Dear Sir or Madame, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 18, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC, which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Ms [redacted] chose to enroll and was listed as a certificate holder under this policy Bader received notice of her claim on September 7, 2017, at which time we obtained a written statement of loss from Ms [redacted] via our web portal regarding water damage to her property stored at [redacted] Storage in [redacted] **, unit number *** On September 12, 2017, Bader mailed Ms [redacted] a Reservation of Rights letter to inform her that Bader is currently investigating whether coverage under the Summary of Coverage applies to this occurrence, specifically by a covered event Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms [redacted] was issued, it reads in part: What Is Not Covered: We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the followingH Loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or notAs indicated to Ms [redacted] in our reservation of rights letter, Bader is continues to investigate this claim to determine if coverage exists under the Summary of Coverage There may be other reasons why coverage does not apply Bader specifically reserved all of our rights and remedies including the right to deny coverage and defend against this claim for any other valid reason which may exist under the terms and conditions of the Summary of Coverage or as revealed by further investigation and informationNo waiver or estoppel of any kind is inferred On September 18, 2017, Ms [redacted] called and spoke with a Bader policy services representative She stated that Bader advertised that it covered water damage and she received a letter stating her property would not be covered This is incorrect The letter Ms [redacted] references was the reservation of rights letter The reservation of rights letter is not a settlement or denial of Ms [redacted] ’s claim, but was sent to inform her that her claim is currently under investigation Due to rainfall of to inches the San Jacinto River flooded the area where the storage facility is located Bader has engaged an independent adjuster to inspect her unit and to determine how the water entered Ms [redacted] ’s unit aside from rising flood watersWe do not yet have the report from our independent adjuster In her complaint, Ms [redacted] alleges she was required by [redacted] Storage to take out insurance coverage through BaderWhile the facility’s lease does require proof of insurance in order to rent a storage unit; it does not require that the insurance be purchased from Bader Company or any other specific company After all the facts of this claim have been reviewed Bader will rely on the summary of coverage to determine if the loss is payable If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached at (317) 706-or via e-mail at ad***@baderco.com Sincerely, Ana Lisa A***-D [redacted] VP Risk Management Bader Company
January 29, [redacted] Revdex.com of Central IndianaN Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate Holder: [redacted] Claim Number(s): [redacted] & [redacted] Policyholder: Lampe Management CompanyStorage Facility: American Flag Jacks Ford DriveDear Ms [redacted] ,Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 26, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by Mrs [redacted] These claims arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Lampe Management Company which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Mrs [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.The following is a detailed timeline for Mrs [redacted] ’ claims:• December 30, -Bader received notice of this loss, at which time a recorded statement of loss was taken from Mrs [redacted] • December 30, - Mrs [redacted] was emailed a Claim Kit letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim List for each claimHard copies of these documents were mailed the following day.• December 30, 2015- Bader requested the payment ledger, Incident Report and photos from the storage facility • January 5, – Bader received two Loss Notification Forms and Personal Property Claim Lists from Mrs [redacted] Mrs [redacted] called to confirm we had received her information and was advised we needed photos of the damaged property Mrs [redacted] advised the customer service representative that her husband sent the photos as a slide showMrs [redacted] was told that Bader did not receive the slide show • January 13, 2016- Bader received a copy of Mrs [redacted] ’s payment ledger, a letter from the facility manager concerning the incident and black and white distorted photos of some of Mrs [redacted] damaged property from the storage facility.• January 25, – Mrs [redacted] called Bader to check the status of her claim and was advised her file was pending She was again advised that Bader needed color pictures of her damaged property and stated she had resent themThe customer service representative advised Mrs [redacted] that Bader had no record of receiving the photos and asked her to resend them as the claim could not be processed without the photos.• January 25, – The adjuster assigned to Mrs [redacted] claim called her to review her claims and ask some additional questions concerning the damaged property He explained to Ms [redacted] Bader needed color photos of her damaged property The adjuster also asked her to indicate which items were damaged by water and which were damaged by rodents She agreed to send in the necessary information.• January 26, – Bader received color photos, a video of the damaged property, and copies of her previously submitted claim forms.• January 27, – The claims adjuster called Ms [redacted] to discuss a potential settlement of her claims• January 29, – Upon review of all information, the claims were amicably resolved and settled checks issued to Mrs [redacted] as follows: o Claim number [redacted] (water damage) -coverage limit of $2, o Claim number [redacted] (rodent damage) - $Mrs [redacted] ’s claims have been settled and her files are now closedIf I can be of any additional assistance, I can be reached (317) 706-or via email at [email protected],Anita A [redacted] VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
November 9, [redacted] Revdex.com of Central Indiana N Delaware Street #Indianapolis, IN 46204- RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate Holder: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Facility: [redacted] Dear Ms***, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll Mr [redacted] is a certificate holder under this policy On August 9, 2016, Mr [redacted] ’s submitted a written statement of loss via our web portal On September 9th we obtained a manager’s statement regarding the loss and incident report On September 20, Bader obtained a copy of the police report and upon review of all information, the claim was denied that day.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based to on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following: Per Mr [redacted] ’s written sworn statement submitted on August 9, 2016, he had last been in his unit on August 5, On August 9, when he returned the locks on his unit were replaced with other(s), and he went to the facility office and had them cut those locks off After the unit was opened, he noticed that the contents of his unit were stolen.Per both the managers and Mr [redacted] ’s statement the locks on the unit in question did not belong to Mr [redacted] therefore, Mr [redacted] requested that the facility cut the locks Once the unit was open, it was then discovered that his property was missing Per the police report received on September 20, “Sometime between 8/5/at 14:hours and 8/9/at 10:hours unknown suspects cut the lock to bay Once inside the suspects removed the listed property ..” On September 20, a denial letter was mailed to Mr [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.On September 23, 2016, a reconsideration request was received via email from Mr [redacted] ’s son On October 3, 2016, a letter was sent to Mr [redacted] , stating that Bader had received his request for reconsideration and was reopening his file for review On October 20, 2016, a reconsideration denial letter was mailed to Mr [redacted] advising the denial was being upheld as there were no visible signs of forcible entry Based on the Summary of Coverage that Mr [redacted] was issued (see enclosed), only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss Please see the following: What is Covered: The following are additional coverages: A BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premisesThe mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entryTheft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary” What is Not Covered: We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: J Theft or unexplained disappearanceWhile not agreeing that Mr [redacted] ’s property loss claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, we are making a good faith effort to resolve his claim for $2, This will be issued to Mr [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me Sincerely, Anita A [redacted] VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** ***
Revdex.com:thanks so much.awesome company so grestful
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***
RE: Complaint ID#: *** Certificate Holder: *** ***
Policyholder: Life Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: Life Storage Solutions Dear Ms***, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by *** ***. Bader is the authorized agent to issue and administer the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (“PMAIC”) policy discussed below. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Life Storage Solutions LLC (“Life Storage”) by PMAIC which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to its tenants that choose to enroll. Dr*** was a certificate holder under this policy with an elected coverage amount of $2,Bader received notice of the loss on May 4, and conducted an investigation which resulted in a denial of the claim on May 12, 2017. The initial outcome of our investigation of Dr***’s claim was that the damages were caused by rodents; but there was ‘failure to protect her property’ as signs of rodents in her unit began in yet the claim was not filed until Bader received a reconsideration request from Dr*** on May 30, at which time the claim was reopened and reviewed by a different adjuster; however, but the determination remained the same and the denial was upheld on June 13, 2017. This determination was upheld on the belief that proper measures were not taken to preserve her property which resulted in further damage to the propertyHowever, without prejudice to any rights regarding this claim or any future claim, Bader has decided it will make a good faith effort to resolve Dr***’s claim. The claim has been reprocessed and a check issued for $2,(see enclosed copy). The check and settlement letter was mailed to Dr*** under separate coverAs to the increase in Dr***’s storage unit fees, Bader's involvement is limited to processing and adjudicating claimsBader does not have any other relationship with Life Storage or its employeesDr*** would need to contact Life Storage to inquire why her rent increasedWe appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matterIf I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely, Ana Lisa A*** VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
This insurance company wants to change the definition of burglary. Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny)For instance, under the common law definition of burglary, the crime had to take place in the dwelling house of another at night.Apparently they will only pay if the thieves make a hole in the wall or in the gateCutting my lock and replace it with another one so the office won't notice it is a burglary
Regards,
***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this response/resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***
Dear Ms***,Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company ("Bader") to your letter dated August 29, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by *** ***.The claim arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ***,
which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enrollMs*** was a certificate holder under this policy.Bader received notice of the loss on August 19, 2016, at which time we obtained a recorded statement of loss from Ms***On August 19, 2016, Ms*** was e-mailed the Storage Claim Kit Letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim ListThese forms were also mailed the next dayOn August 28, 2016, Bader sent an outside adjuster from *** Claims Solutions to perform an inspection of the facility, located at *** *** ***, Baton Rouge, LA Upon receipt of the *** adjuster report, review of all information and for the reasons set forth below, the claim was denied on September 1, 2016.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following:* Per Ms***’ s statement on August 19, 2016, the loss occurred the day before.* Per the facility, on August 15, 2016, the area manager entered the facility to find to feet of standing water over the entire siteOnce the waters receded the facility employees escorted the tenants to their units to remove any salvageable itemsBMS then removed the remaining debris and sanitized the units.* Per Ms***’ s and the facility managers statement, the water entered her unit from a flood.* Per the *** Claims Adjusters’ report, there were no known damages to the loss location aside from those directly related to general condition of floodingThere was no evidence of any structural damage to the building or facility. All parties are in agreement that the water damage was caused by heavy rains that flooded the area. Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms*** was issued, the following is excluded from coverage:What Is Not Covered:We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: HLoss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or not. In her complaint, Ms*** alleges she had been informed that her insurance coverage would cover her property in the event of a burglary or unanticipated weather conditionsI am uncertain where that wrong information would have come fromI do not have a copy of the actual form she signed as the facility’s records were mostly destroyed in the floodHowever, that is incorrectAs set forth in the attached specimen enrollment form she would have signed when electing coverage; the brochure she would have been provided at the time of rental; and the Summary of Coverage that was mailed to her on June 19, to *** *** ***, *** *** *** *** damage(s) as a result of a flood are not covered causes of loss.Bader must rely on the summary of coverage to determine if a loss is payableWhile we do sympathize with Ms***’s loss of property, based on the facts of the loss and the provisions of coverage we must deny her coverage for this loss.If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached via e-mail at ad***@baderco.comSincerely,Anita A***VP, Risk Management
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[The day I say my storage unit in October I thought it was just the mattress and some debris that was in it so I sent the information to Brader and the pictures and they said they didn't cover itI followed all guidelines for a refund and Brader said it was coveredThe day I moved out of the unit I noticed the mess that was in there was bigger then just the mattressThe day I complained the company had work done to the building causing the wood and dirt and debris to fall into my unitWhen I placed my things in there it was not covered with dirt and I was made to get the insurance after I got the unitIt is not alright to pay for insurance to insure the safety of my belongings to have to throw out and clean things after I saw the extent of the dirt I called the Revdex.com because they would not compensate my things in OctoberWhy should I have to take a loss when it is their fault I didn't place my things in their to get dirty and I should not have had to trash or clean dirt and mold off my belongingsThis is not the first storage unit I've had and I don't appreciate the lack of help or respect I am getting.]Regards,*** ***
Please see the attached response and supporting document.Thank you,Anita A[redacted]Compliance Manager
September 21, 2017 Revdex.com of Central Indiana 151 N Delaware Street #2020 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID# [redacted] Insured: ...
[redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC Storage Facility: [redacted] Storage Dear Sir or Madame, Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 18, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted]. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] Storage Solutions, LLC, which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] chose to enroll and was listed as a certificate holder under this policy. Bader received notice of her claim on September 7, 2017, at which time we obtained a written statement of loss from Ms. [redacted] via our web portal regarding water damage to her property stored at [redacted] Storage in [redacted], unit number [redacted]. On September 12, 2017, Bader mailed Ms. [redacted] a Reservation of Rights letter to inform her that Bader is currently investigating whether coverage under the Summary of Coverage applies to this occurrence, specifically by a covered event. Per the Summary of Coverage that Ms. [redacted] was issued, it reads in part: What Is Not Covered: 2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following. H. Loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by flood, storm surge, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow of any other body of water, or their spray whether driven by wind or not. As indicated to Ms. [redacted] in our reservation of rights letter, Bader is continues to investigate this claim to determine if coverage exists under the Summary of Coverage. There may be other reasons why coverage does not apply. Bader specifically reserved all of our rights and remedies including the right to deny coverage and defend against this claim for any other valid reason which may exist under the terms and conditions of the Summary of Coverage or as revealed by further investigation and information. No waiver or estoppel of any kind is inferred. On September 18, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called and spoke with a Bader policy services representative. She stated that Bader advertised that it covered water damage and she received a letter stating her property would not be covered. This is incorrect. The letter Ms. [redacted] references was the reservation of rights letter. The reservation of rights letter is not a settlement or denial of Ms. [redacted]’s claim, but was sent to inform her that her claim is currently under investigation. Due to rainfall of 30 to 40 inches the San Jacinto River flooded the area where the storage facility is located. Bader has engaged an independent adjuster to inspect her unit and to determine how the water entered Ms. [redacted]’s unit aside from rising flood waters. We do not yet have the report from our independent adjuster. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] alleges she was required by [redacted] Storage to take out insurance coverage through Bader. While the facility’s lease does require proof of insurance in order to rent a storage unit; it does not require that the insurance be purchased from Bader Company or any other specific company. After all the facts of this claim have been reviewed Bader will rely on the summary of coverage to determine if the loss is payable. If I can be of additional assistance, I can be reached at (317) 706-6062 or via e-mail at ad[redacted]@baderco.com. Sincerely, Ana Lisa A[redacted]-D[redacted] VP Risk Management Bader Company
November 9, 2016 [redacted] Revdex.com of Central Indiana 151 N Delaware Street #2020 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Certificate...
Holder: [redacted] Policyholder: [redacted] Storage Facility: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted], Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (Bader) to your letter dated November 3, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted]. The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Mr. [redacted] is a certificate holder under this policy. On August 9, 2016, Mr. [redacted]’s submitted a written statement of loss via our web portal. On September 9th we obtained a manager’s statement regarding the loss and incident report. On September 20, 2016 Bader obtained a copy of the police report and upon review of all information, the claim was denied that day.Bader conducted a thorough investigation based to on the information provided and determined the facts of the claim to be the following: Per Mr. [redacted]’s written sworn statement submitted on August 9, 2016, he had last been in his unit on August 5, 2016. On August 9, 2016 when he returned the locks on his unit were replaced with other(s), and he went to the facility office and had them cut those locks off. After the unit was opened, he noticed that the contents of his unit were stolen.Per both the managers and Mr. [redacted]’s statement the locks on the unit in question did not belong to Mr. [redacted] therefore, Mr. [redacted] requested that the facility cut the locks. Once the unit was open, it was then discovered that his property was missing. Per the police report received on September 20, 2016 “Sometime between 8/5/16 at 14:00 hours and 8/9/16 at 10:00 hours unknown suspects cut the lock to bay 50. Once inside the suspects removed the listed property. …..” On September 20, 2016 a denial letter was mailed to Mr. [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.On September 23, 2016, a reconsideration request was received via email from Mr. [redacted]’s son. On October 3, 2016, a letter was sent to Mr. [redacted], stating that Bader had received his request for reconsideration and was reopening his file for review. On October 20, 2016, a reconsideration denial letter was mailed to Mr. [redacted] advising the denial was being upheld as there were no visible signs of forcible entry. Based on the Summary of Coverage that Mr. [redacted] was issued (see enclosed), only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss. Please see the following: What is Covered: 2. The following are additional coverages: A. BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premises. The mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entry. Theft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary”. What is Not Covered: 2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following: J. Theft or unexplained disappearance. While not agreeing that Mr. [redacted]’s property loss claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, we are making a good faith effort to resolve his claim for $2,000. This will be issued to Mr. [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Anita A[redacted] VP, Risk Management Bader Company
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
This company advertises it covers water damage therefore regardless of how the water damage occurred they are liable. Water damage is Water damage no matter how many ways this company denies they have to pay. Its not my fault there a couple of hundred other folks they are denying as well.[redacted] Storage required the tenets have insurance so pay up.
Regards,
[redacted]
January 29, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Claim Number(s): [redacted] &...
[redacted]Policyholder: Lampe Management CompanyStorage Facility: American Flag Jacks Ford DriveDear Ms. [redacted],Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 26, 2016, regarding the complaint filed by Mrs. [redacted]. These claims arose under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Lampe Management Company which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Mrs. [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.The following is a detailed timeline for Mrs. [redacted]’ claims:• December 30, 2015 -Bader received notice of this loss, at which time a recorded statement of loss was taken from Mrs. [redacted]. • December 30, 2015 - Mrs. [redacted] was emailed a Claim Kit letter, Loss Notification Form, and Personal Property Claim List for each claim. Hard copies of these documents were mailed the following day.• December 30, 2015- Bader requested the payment ledger, Incident Report and photos from the storage facility. • January 5, 2016 – Bader received two Loss Notification Forms and Personal Property Claim Lists from Mrs. [redacted]. Mrs. [redacted] called to confirm we had received her information and was advised we needed photos of the damaged property. Mrs. [redacted] advised the customer service representative that her husband sent the photos as a slide show. Mrs. [redacted] was told that Bader did not receive the slide show. • January 13, 2016- Bader received a copy of Mrs. [redacted]’s payment ledger, a letter from the facility manager concerning the incident and black and white distorted photos of some of Mrs. [redacted] damaged property from the storage facility.• January 25, 2016 – Mrs. [redacted] called Bader to check the status of her claim and was advised her file was pending. She was again advised that Bader needed color pictures of her damaged property and stated she had resent them. The customer service representative advised Mrs. [redacted] that Bader had no record of receiving the photos and asked her to resend them as the claim could not be processed without the photos.• January 25, 2016 – The adjuster assigned to Mrs. [redacted] claim called her to review her claims and ask some additional questions concerning the damaged property. He explained to Ms. [redacted] Bader needed color photos of her damaged property. The adjuster also asked her to indicate which items were damaged by water and which were damaged by rodents. She agreed to send in the necessary information.• January 26, 2016 – Bader received color photos, a video of the damaged property, and copies of her previously submitted claim forms.• January 27, 2016 – The claims adjuster called Ms. [redacted] to discuss a potential settlement of her claims. • January 29, 2016 – Upon review of all information, the claims were amicably resolved and settled checks issued to Mrs. [redacted] as follows: o Claim number [redacted] (water damage) -coverage limit of $2,000 o Claim number [redacted] (rodent damage) - $823.42 Mrs. [redacted]’s claims have been settled and her files are now closed. If I can be of any additional assistance, I can be reached (317) 706-60621 or via email at [email protected],Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
See attached
October 20, 2016[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Your Complaint ID#: [redacted] Our Claim Numbers: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Policyholder:...
[redacted]Storage Facility: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted],I am writing in response to your letter dated October 12, 2016 regarding the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted].The above referenced claims pertaining to this complaint arose from a [redacted] Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under their policy and elected $2,000 of coverage effective 1/28/2012.Bader conducted a thorough investigation of both of Ms. [redacted]’s claims and determined the facts to be as follows: • On September 9, 2013 Ms. [redacted] filed a claim for damaged property stored in unit 2084, claim number [redacted], with a date of loss of July 1, 2013. Bader received Ms. [redacted]’s incomplete claim documents on October 15, 2013. After several attempts to obtain the needed color photos of the damaged property being claimed, they were received on September 24, 2015, and the claim was settled that day for $120.13. o On October 18, 2016, Bader’s accounting department was contacted by Ms. [redacted] as she was attempting to cash the $120.13 settlement check dated September 24, 2015. As that check was valid only for 180 days, Ms. [redacted] was advised to return the check and a new one would be issued. • On September 25, 2015, Ms. [redacted] filed a second claim for damaged property stored in unit 2084, claim number [redacted], with the same date of loss, July 1, 2013, as her prior claim. Ms. [redacted] stated while vacating the unit on September 25, 2015 (she had not been to the unit since 2013) she discovered additional water damage, plus rodent damage to her property. She contacted the Manager to inspect the unit and disposed of most of the damaged items in the facility’s dumpster. Ms. [redacted]’s property was, apparently, left in the unit after the initial damages were discovered in 2013 and not reported in the original claim. The claim was denied on November 25, 2015, as the damages were not caused by a named peril and rodent damage is excluded under the Summary of Coverage. The SUMMARY OF COVERAGE that Ms. [redacted] was issued reads in part:What Is Insured: Your personal property, while it is in your unit, against losses from: 1. Fire; lightning; windstorm; hail; explosion; smoke; aircraft; vehicles; riot; civil commotion; vandalism; leakage from fire extinguishing equipment; sinkhole; collapse;volcanic action; breakage of building glass; falling objects; weight of snow, ice or sleet; water damage; earthquake. 2. Collapse of building caused by weight of rain or snow that collects on a roof.What Is Not Covered: 5. Neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property from further damage at and after the time of loss. 6. The policy will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following. B. Wear and tear, any quality in the property that causes it to damage or destroy itself, gradual deterioration, insects, vermin, or rodents.However, after further review of these claims, Bader has decided it will make a good faith effort to resolve Ms. [redacted]’s claims. The damaged property in both claims stemmed from the same July 1, 2013 date of loss and, therefore, are considered as one loss. A settlement check in the amount of $2,000, the coverage limit, was sent to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover via certified mail (see attached).The original settlement checks for claim number [redacted] in the amount of $120.13 dated September 24, 2015 that was returned to our office by Ms. [redacted] was voided. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
June 2, 2015 [redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599 RE: Complaint ID#: ...
[redacted] Insured: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Storage Facility: Planet Self Storage - Washington Dear Ms. [redacted], Allow this to acknowledge receipt of your letter date June 1, 2015 regarding the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to Storage Investment Management which offers Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Bader received notice of the loss on April 7, 2015 and conducted an investigation which resulted in a denial of the claim on May 5, 2015. The initial outcome of our investigation concerning Ms. [redacted] claim was that the damage to her property was caused by surface water, which is not a covered loss. On May 28, 2015, Bader’s Claim Manager spoke with Ms. [redacted] son and obtained further information indicating that the loss was due to mold/mildew, which is a covered loss. As a result, and without prejudice to any rights regarding this claim or any future claim, Bader has made a good faith effort to resolve Ms. [redacted] claim. Specifically, the claim was reprocessed on May 28, 2015 and a check issued for $586.31 (see enclosed copy). The check and settlement letter were mailed to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover. We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Anita [redacted]Bader CompanyCompliance Manager
January 13, 2017[redacted]Revdex.com of Central Indiana151 N Delaware Street #2020Indianapolis, IN 46204-2599RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted]Certificate Holder: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Storage Facility: [redacted]...
[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted],Allow this to serve as the response of Bader Company (“Bader”) to your letter dated January 7, 2017, regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].The above referenced claim arose from a Commercial Inland Marine Policy that was issued to [redacted] which offered Leased Premises Property coverage to tenants that choose to enroll. Ms. [redacted] was a certificate holder under this policy.On November 19, 2016, Ms. [redacted] submitted a written statement of loss via Bader’s web claim portal. On December 12, 2016, Bader obtained a manager’s statement and an incident report regarding the loss. In addition, on December 22, 2016, Bader obtained a copy of the police report. Upon review of all information, the claim was denied January 3, 2017. Bader conducted a thorough investigation and determined the facts of the claim to be as follows: • Per Ms. [redacted]’s written statement submitted on November 19, 2016, she had last been in her unit on November 12, 2016. On November 17, 2016, she was notified by the facility manager that when he performed a lock check he discovered her unit was not locked or secured. When she arrived at the facility, that same day, she found that one of her two padlocks had been cut off and was missing. The second lock was still on the unit, but not secured. Upon entering the unit Ms. [redacted] discovered that some of her property was missing. • The facility manager’s incident report dated November 17, 2016 stated “I approached the tenants brother because he needed help after hours. He claimed that someone had broken into his unit and cut off his lock. I walked him to the elevator and proceeded to the unit. Tenant claims that there were two. The two called earlier in the day to a discovery while conducting the lock check. Unit 2205 was found locked open, which means that the lock was on the unit but the hasp itself was not closed the correct way therefore the unit can still be opened.” • On December 12, 2016, a claims processor obtained a recorded statement from the facility manager, Michael. The manager stated there are no cameras around this unit. Michael explained how the hasp works to open and securely close the unit with the lock and could not verify that there were two locks on the unit. He also noted that the marks visible on the hasp looked to be normal wear and tear. No other units reported missing property. • Per the police report filed in the name of [redacted] (Ms. [redacted]’s brother) “Unknown suspect used possible bolt cutter to gain entrance to the victim’s storage unit. Unknown suspect took the victim’s property and fled to an unknown location.” • On January 3, 2017, a denial letter was mailed to Ms. [redacted] as it was determined there were no signs of forced entry into the unit.Based on the Summary of Coverage that Ms. [redacted] was issued 6/01/2016, only Burglary, as defined below, is a covered loss. Please see the following: What is Covered:2. The following are additional coverages:A. BURGLARY: The term “Burglary” means the act of stealing insured property by forcible entry into the securely locked leased premises provided there are visible marks of such forcible entry upon the exterior of the leased premises. The mere absence of a lock or padlock does not constitute visible marks of forcible entry. Theft or unexplained disappearance is not covered unless caused by “Burglary”. What is Not Covered:2. We will not pay for loss or damage to personal property caused by or resulting from any of the following:J. Theft or unexplained disappearance.However, while not agreeing that Ms. [redacted]’s property damage claim was the result of one of the named perils under the Summary of Coverage, Bader is willing to make a good faith effort to resolve her claim. As such, the claim was reprocessed and a check in the amount of $1,500.00 will be sent to Ms. [redacted] under separate cover.We appreciate the assistance of the Revdex.com in resolving this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,Anita A[redacted]VP, Risk ManagementBader Company
Revdex.com:
Thank you Revdex.com. I have received a check for $2,000
Regards,
[redacted]