Alfa Insurance

Alfa strenuously denies that it did anything illegal and/or inappropriateThe amount retained by Alfa represented the period of time the insurance policy issued to Ms [redacted] remained in effect and during which time coverage was providedNevertheless, it is willing to pay Ms [redacted] $in order to fully and finally resolve her complaintIn so, doing Alfa is not admitting that such a refund was required and/or that it is liable in any amount to Ms***Nor should such payment be construed as such an admission

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] I feel like [redacted] treated me like an old, senile womanI don't think he would have reacted to a man the way he talked to me I felt like I was talked down toI am years old, but I am NOT Senile [redacted]

We appraised the damage to her vehicle We cannot control what the shop is charging Autosport is a private business and is free to charge his customer whatever he wants for the repairs, we cannot dictate to Autosport what he can charge his customer The prevailing market rate for body repairs in the Auburn/Opelika market is $per hour Yet the shop is charging $per hour As an insurance company, we owe the fair going market rate for necessary repairs We do not owe more simply because the shop charges more than the prevailing market rate in the area The owner was aware of the cost discrepancy before she took the vehicle in for repairs and was notified that the shop charges a higher than standard rate, but she still selected this shop We have paid a fair and reasonable amount to repair her vehicle

No further response is required.
Again, the owner of the vehicle was provided the approved cost of repairs before she took the vehicle to the shop and was advised that the shop she selected was charging a labor rate far above the standard market rate for the Auburn/Opelika market. We advised her that if she wished to have her repairs completed at that shop, we did not owe the increase due to this shop over-charging their customers. Rather we owe the fair cost of repairs based on industry standard estimating and repair practices and based on competitive labor and material prices
She is free to choose any repair facility she is comfortable working with. However we do not owe more money simply because her shop over-charged her. If she has a complaint, it would be with the shop she selected

Bal-Con recently completed a 45x600ft building for Rv and Boat storage for meWorking with Richard and Hank was a pleasureThere attention to detail was second to noneI will definitely use them for my expansion, and would highly recommend Bal-Con Builders

Bal-Con recently completed a 45x600ft building for Rv and Boat storage for meWorking with Richard and Hank was a pleasureThere attention to detail was second to noneI will definitely use them for my expansion, and would highly recommend Bal-Con Builders

Alfa
strenuously denies that it did anything illegal and/or inappropriateThe
amount retained by Alfa represented the period of time the insurance policy
issued to Ms*** remained in effect and during which time coverage was
providedNevertheless, it is willing to pay Ms*** $in
order to fully
and finally resolve her complaintIn so, doing Alfa is not admitting that such
a refund was required and/or that it is liable in any amount to Ms***Nor
should such payment be construed as such an admission

We appraised the damage to her vehicle.  We cannot control what the shop is charging.  Autosport is a private business and is free to charge his customer whatever he wants for the repairs, we cannot dictate to Autosport what he can charge his customer. ...

 
The prevailing market rate for body repairs in the Auburn/Opelika market is $45 per hour.  Yet the shop is charging $63 per hour.  As an insurance company, we owe the fair going market rate for necessary repairs.  We do not owe more simply because the shop charges more than the prevailing market rate in the area. 
 
The owner was aware of the cost discrepancy before she took the vehicle in for repairs and was notified that the shop charges a higher than standard rate, but she still selected this shop. 
 
We have paid a fair and reasonable amount to repair her vehicle.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
I feel like [redacted] treated me like an old, senile woman. I don't think he would have reacted to a man the way he talked to me.
I felt like I was talked down to. I am 72 years old, but I am NOT Senile. 
[redacted]

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

Alfa
strenuously denies that it did anything illegal and/or inappropriate. The
amount retained by Alfa represented the period of time...

the insurance policy
issued to Ms. [redacted] remained in effect and during which time coverage was
provided. Nevertheless, it is willing to pay Ms. [redacted] $59.00 in order to fully
and finally resolve her complaint. In so, doing Alfa is not admitting that such
a refund was required and/or that it is liable in any amount to Ms. [redacted]. Nor
should such payment be construed as such an admission.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]The reason that I am not satisfied with the response from the business is because they have the same proof of paperwork that I have to support my accusations. I will send a copy to the Revdex.com if necessary but ALFA already have all the copies that I have and know my accusations are true. Where should I mail my paperwork to? This will show that my statements are truthful.
Regards,
[redacted]

Alfa Mutual Insurance
Companies (“Alfa”) takes complaints, be that of a current...

or former insured,
seriously. The complaints that were made against Afla are unfounded and the
complaining party failed to accurately state what has occurred. The following
is Alfa’s response to the former insured’s complaints:
1.         “1st incident”: We wrote the
former insured a homeowner policy with American Strategic Insurance (“ASI”). The
former insured requested that we set the policy up so that the annual premium
would be paid once a year by his mortgage company, which is referred to as a
full pay policy. His mortgagee would not pay it.  The former insured then requested we change
the policy to quarterly payments, which resulted in an increase in his premium due
to the loss of the full pay discount. The former insured was made aware of the
loss of the discount at the time of the transaction. He has since canceled the ASI
policy.
2.         “2nd Incident”: The former
insured reported the loss on December 1, 2014. He spoke with an adjuster, Mr. [redacted], the same day. The former insured was provided a list of Direct Repair
Shops to consider. On December 3rd, the former insured advised Alfa to
close the claim as he would be paying for the damage himself. On December 8th,
the former insured met with Mr. [redacted] and advised Mr. [redacted] that he wanted to
re-open his claim as the damage was more than he anticipated. The former
insured subsequently provided an estimate from [redacted]. Payment of
$1,063.40 was issued. Our former insured initially advised Alfa that he would
call when a rental car was needed. On December 8, 2014, the former insured
requested a rental car. Enterprise Rental Car was contacted that day and
arrangements made that day for the former insured to have a rental car for 7
days. On December 12, 2014, the former insured contacted Alfa and asked to be
allowed to use Hertz. This request was approved that same day and a rental car
was provided to him from December 12, 2014 through December 18, 2014.  Any delay in the rental car being provided
was due to the former insured’s actions and/or inactions.
3.         “3rd Incident”: Alfa’s
records indicate that the former insured contacted our Marketing Resource
Center on December 23, 2014 and reported the hail damage to his vehicle. Mr. [redacted] spoke with our former insured the same day about the loss. The former
insured chose to have the hail damage repaired at Duren Paint & Body. After
applying the comprehensive deductible of $500.00, payment of $4,644.25 was issued
on January 5, 2015.  A second deductible
was charged because the damage was a second and different loss from the
original loss.
4.         “4th Incident”: The former
insured’s monthly premiums fluctuated due to late payment fees assessed to the
policy, amendments made to the policy, and new policy terms as the policy was
cancelled multiple times due to nonpayment and re-issued with a new policy term
and premium amount. 
5.         “5th Incident”: Alfa
disputes the former insured’s description of the events. The annual mileage was
increased from the “1,000-7500” range to the “7,500 – 12,000” range due to
subsequently obtained information. The odometer reading which we received on the
original June 6, 2014 application was 22,320. On July 7, 2015, Alfa was
provided information which indicated that the odometer reading was 41,398,
which indicated that the former insured was driving the vehicle over 19,000
miles a year. Thus, the increased premiums were appropriate.
7.         “6th Incident (the first of
the two unrelated “6th incidents” listed in the complaint)”:  Alfa disputes the former insured’s description
of the events. Alfa’s Customer Service Representative and Mr. [redacted] both
disagree with our former insured’s s[redacted]ment. 
They both indicate that our former insured was advised that Mr. [redacted] was
on the telephone and, thus, not available when our former insured called. The
former insured was not told that Mr. [redacted] was not in the building.
8.         “6th Incident (the second of
the two unrelated “6th incidents” listed in the complaint)”: Alfa
disputes the former insured’s description of the events. The former’s insured’s
automobile policy was cancelled for non-payment of premium on August 7, 2015.
The former insured came into the service center to reinstate the policy on
August 12, 2015.  This was the fourth
time the policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premiums in approximately
one year. Given this history along with the 3 claims which he had filed in the
last year, the decision was made to not accept reinstatement of the policy. The
former insured’s questions were not the reason for Alfa’s decision. 
9.         “7th Incident”: The
information which Alfa sent to Lexis-Nexis reported the former insured’s November,
2014 claim as a parked vehicle claim, the December, 2015 claim as a hail damage
claim, and the June, 2015 claim as a collision with an animal claim. Alfa did
not assign “fault” as the term is used by the former insured in any of its
reports and its description of each of the claims is accurate.