Bison Motorcycle, LLC

So it says that the business address the issues within my complaintI do not believe that to be true all they did was to affect their rating please they're unwilling to do anything?

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear.My dad spoke with the investigating officer who explained that he took several things into account and determined that I was 25% at fault just for being there and the other driver was found to be 75% at fault which is why she was cited and I was notI may have been in the intersection in the process of making a turn but once she failed to stop for a red light it was actually her obligation to yield the right of way as stated by an eye witnessThe officer may have listed it as that I failed to yield the right of way but once this proceeds to court and testimony is giving I'm quite sure that the Commissioner is going to ask the same question especially since the officer has stated that she was found to be 75% at fault and seeing that in the state of wisconsin I only have to show that she was 51% at fault to win my case it's going to cost Erie insurance a lot more then just the cost of my truckI will also show that if anything else the officer made a mistake in that I should have been found to be inattentive driving and she should have been cited for failing to yield the right of way because once she decided to accelerate through a traffic light that was clearly red It was no longer my obligation to yield the right of way while I was in the process of making a legal turn Regards, Steven [redacted]

This is in response to your additional inquiry dated and received March 10, 2017, regarding Steven [redacted] 's complaint related to an accident occurring December 18, between ERIE's insured driver, Lauren [redacted] , and Mr [redacted] .We appreciate Mr [redacted] 's opinion regarding ERIE's fault determination However, ERIE’s position is unchanged.If you should need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Ine directly at ###-###-####

Dear Ms*** :NAIC #: ***Michelle *** &Anne *** ***
** *** ** ***
***Jon ***328595This letter is in response to your correspondence, dated and received June 14,16, with acomplaint made to your o ffice by Jon *** regarding an accident which occurred on 617116.We have received and reviewed the complaint fro m Jon *** of *** ***This complaintinvolves a claim for ERIE Policyholder Michelle ***This was a coll is ion loss reported 6-7-for a 20II Ford Explorer.ERIE Field Material Damage Appraiser Manuel *** and ERI E Senior Material DamageSupervisor Jeff *** inspected the damages to the vehicle at *** *** on 6-8-Alsopresent was Juan, from *** ***, who indicated he was an estimator for *** ***A copyof the estimate written by *** *** and a copy of the signed repair order were presented andthe parties proceeded to inspect the damages to the I I Ford ExplorerImmediately precedingthe inspection, the ERIE employees greeted and spoke to Jon *** of *** *** and Manuelwas introduced to Jon as the local appraiser for ERIE.Manuel, Jeff, and Juan reviewed the damages on the vehicle while reviewing the shop estimate.Manuel and Jeff pointed out to Juan of *** *** (who wrote the estimate for *** ***) thatthere was no sheet metal damage to the right quarter panel*** *** had wri tten hours ofrepair and refinishA light scuff that could be buffed was all that was notedJuan of *** ***was asked if he could identi fy the damages requi ri ng the sheet metal repair and he was unable todo soManuel and Jeff further advised that the passenger side doors, tr ont and rear neededreplacement rather than just an outer door panel being replaced[t was also noted that Tender***Car had missed further damages to the door shellsJuan, Manuel and Jeff agreed upon the repairprocess in principle, based upon visual damages which included; blending the passenger sidefender, replacement of the passenger side front and rear door with ***Recycled doorassemblies from a vehicle current model year or newer, blending the right quarter panel, buffingthe light scuff to the right quarter panel, replacement of passenger side rear wheel, tire, and theupper control arm and lateral arm (visually bent suspension items)Manuel and Jeff completedthe estimate and gave a copy to Juan of *** ***Photos obtained during the inspection areattached for review.Following the inspection, ERIE Employees, Manuel *** and Jeff *** called Michelle*** to advise that they had inspected the vehicle and the ERIE estimate was slightly differentthan the shop's estimate because of missed damages, as well as costs noted for non-existentdamagesThey verified with Michelle *** that the vehicle had a lienholder and confirmedthat the lienholder must be added to the check for paymentERIE Senior Material Damageappraiser reviewed the direction to pay order for *** ***, that had been signed by thePolicyholderIt included the following language: "I authorize *** *** to use aftermarketparts when direct fit or reconditioned versions are available to cover my deductible payment"Itwas confirmed that since a lienholder existed, ERIE had a duty under the policy to protect thelienholder's interest, and thus their name is added to the draft so that they have an opportunity toagree to the conditions of the repair order which include the potential to substitute parts to reducethe customer's deductible.Michelle *** stated she did not understand the repair order language, but had a good workingrelationship with *** *** in the pastJeff *** confirmed that the ERIE Policyholdermay have their vehicle repaired at *** *** and confirmed that it is our policy to ensure thatour customer selects where they would want their vehicle repairedThe ERIE Policyholderwanted a clearer explanation of repair order language, and Jeff *** confirmed that thisallows the shop to use alternate parts for the repairs, which may be different from the partsprovided for in the ERIE estimate, which allows costs to be reduced, and in turn allows the shopto offset the Policyholder deductibleReduction of the policy deductible is a marketingtechnique for *** ***This is clearly stated on the website for *** ***(www.tendercar.com) as well as in other advertising.Following the discussion of the estimate and payment process, Michelle *** indicated thatshe did not feel comfortable with the language in the repair order and had not had this explainedto her by the shopShe asked for additional recommendations for where to have her vehiclerepairedJeff ***, ERIE Senior Material Damage Supervisor, confirmed it was her choice,and reiterated that included *** ***The Policyholder indicated she has her vehicle servicedat Ewalds Venus Ford, and Jeff confirmed again, that it was her choice, and we will work withany shop she selectsAt that time, Michelle *** stated she would call *** *** *** tomake arrangements to have her vehicle moved there.***Please find attached the estimate from *** ***, their signed repair order/power of attorney,and the ERIE estimate for *** ***, along with the photos from the ERIE Inspection.We regret that Mr*** was unable to complete the repairs *** *** estimated for thecustomerHowever, it is the customer's choice as to where they have their vehicle repairedMr.*** indicates the vehicle was taken apart and they incurred costs for storage as well asdismantling the vehicleThis is not accurate as the loss was 6-7, the vehicle was inspected on 6-8, and the vehicle was moved to another body shopYou will note in the photographs that thevehicle is intact and had not been dismantledMr*** did not sustain a loss, he simplyprovided an estimate which is part of the service operation of a body shop and not an addedexpense.If we can provide your office with additional information or clarify any item, please do nothesitate to contact me at ###-###-####.Enclosures:EstimatesPhotographsc: *** *** *** ***Sincerely,~Karen *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ***
*** ** *** ***
** *** *** *** *** *** ***
** ***

This is in response to your letter dated and received
February 21, 2017, regarding Steven ***'s complaint related to an accident
occurring December 18, between ERIE's insured driver, Lauren ***, and
Mr***.ERIE responded to the State of Wisconsin, Office of the
Commissioner of
Insurance on February 10, 2017, regarding Mr***'s
complaint.Based on ERIE's investigation, we find that Mr*** was
75% liable for failure to yield the right of way resulting in ERIE's denial of
his claim.Upon receipt of Mr***'s complaint filed with your
office, our office again reviewed all claims investigative materials with
ERIE's Claims Manager and concludes that our position is unchanged.If you should need any additional information regarding
this matter, please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-####

This is in response to your additional inquiry dated and
received March 10, 2017, regarding Steven [redacted]'s complaint related to an accident
occurring December 18, 2016 between ERIE's insured driver, Lauren [redacted], and
Mr. [redacted].We appreciate Mr. [redacted]'s opinion regarding ERIE's fault determination.
However, ERIE’s position is unchanged.If you should need any additional information regarding
this matter, please feel free to contact Ine directly at ###-###-####.

Dear Ms. [redacted] :NAIC #: [redacted]Jon [redacted]This letter is in response to your correspondence, dated and received June 14,20 16, with acomplaint made to your o ffice by Jon [redacted] regarding an accident which occurred on 617116.We...

have received and reviewed the complaint fro m Jon [redacted] of [redacted]. This complaintinvolves a claim for ERIE Pol icyholder Michelle [redacted]. This was a coll is ion loss reported 6-7-16 for a 20 II Ford Explorer.ERIE Field Material Damage Appraiser Manuel [redacted] and ERI E Senior Materi al DamageSupervisor Jeff [redacted] inspected the damages to the vehicle at [redacted] on 6-8-1 6. Alsopresent was Juan, from [redacted], who indicated he was an estimator for [redacted]. A copyof the estimate written by [redacted] and a copy of the signed repair order were presented andthe parties proceeded to inspect the damages to the 20 I I Ford Explorer. Immediately precedingthe inspection, the ERIE employees greeted and spoke to Jon [redacted] of [redacted] and Manuelwas introduced to Jon as the local appraiser for ERI E.Manuel, Jeff, and Juan reviewed the damages on the vehicle while reviewing the shop estimate.Manuel and Jeff pointed out to Juan of [redacted] (who wrote the estimate for [redacted]) thatthere was no sheet metal damage to the right quarter panel. [redacted] had wri tten 4.0 hours ofrepair and refinish. A light scuff that could be buffed was all that was noted. Juan of [redacted]was asked if he could identify the damages requi ri ng the sheet metal repair and he was unable todo so. Manuel and Jeff further advised that the passenger side doors, front and rear neededreplacement rather than just an outer door panel being replaced. [t was also noted that Tender[redacted]Car had missed further damages to the door shells. Juan, Manuel and Jeff agreed upon the repairprocess in principle, based upon visual damages which included; blending the passenger sidefender, replacement of the passenger side front and rear door with [redacted] Recycled doorassemblies from a vehicle current model year or newer, blending the right quarter panel, buffingthe light scuff to the right quarter panel, replacement of passenger side rear wheel, tire, and theupper control arm and lateral arm (visually bent suspension items). Manuel and Jeff completedthe estimate and gave a copy to Juan of [redacted]. Photos obtained during the inspection areattached for review.Following the inspection, ERIE Employees, Manuel [redacted] and Jeff [redacted] called Michelle[redacted] to advise that they had inspected the vehicle and the ERIE estimate was slightly differentthan the shop's estimate because of missed damages, as well as costs noted for non-existentdamages. They verified with Michelle [redacted] that the vehicle had a lienholder and confirmedthat the lienholder must be added to the check for payment. ERIE Senior Material Damageappraiser reviewed the direction to pay order for [redacted], that had been signed by thePolicyholder. It included the following language: "I authorize [redacted] to use aftermarketparts when direct fit or reconditioned versions are available to cover my deductible payment". Itwas confirmed that since a lienholder existed, ERIE had a duty under the policy to protect thelienholder's interest, and thus their name is added to the draft so that they have an opportunity toagree to the conditions of the repair order which include the potential to substitute parts to reducethe customer's deductible.Michelle [redacted] stated she did not understand the repair order language, but had a good workingrelationship with [redacted] in the past. Jeff [redacted] confirmed that the ERIE Policyholdermay have their vehicle repaired at [redacted] and confirmed that it is our policy to ensure thatour customer selects where they would want their vehicle repaired. The ERIE Policyholderwanted a clearer explanation of repair order language, and Jeff [redacted] confirmed that thisallows the shop to use alternate parts for the repairs, which may be different from the partsprovided for in the ERIE estimate, which allows costs to be reduced, and in turn allows the shopto offset the Policyholder deductible. Reduction of the policy deductible is a marketingtechnique for [redacted]. This is clearly stated on the website for [redacted](www.tendercar.com) as well as in other advertising.Following the discussion of the estimate and payment process, Michelle [redacted] indicated thatshe did not feel comfortable with the language in the repair order and had not had this explainedto her by the shop. She asked for additional recommendations for where to have her vehiclerepaired. Jeff [redacted], ERIE [redacted], confirmed it was her choice,and reiterated that included [redacted]. The Policyholder indicated she has her vehicle servicedat [redacted], and Jeff confirmed again, that it was her choice, and we will work withany shop she selects. At that time, Michelle [redacted] stated she would call [redacted] tomake arrangements to have her vehicle moved there.Please find attached the estimate from [redacted], their signed repair order/power of attorney,and the ERIE estimate for [redacted], along with the photos from the ERIE Inspection.We regret that Mr. [redacted] was unable to complete the repairs [redacted] estimated for thecustomer. However, it is the customer's choice as to where they have their vehicle repaired. Mr.[redacted] indicates the vehicle was taken apart and they incurred costs for storage as well asdismantling the vehicle. This is not accurate as the loss was 6-7, the vehicle was inspected on 6-8, and the vehicle was moved to another body shop. You will note in the photographs that thevehicle is intact and had not been dismantled. Mr. [redacted] did not sustain a loss, he simplyprovided an estimate which is part of the service operation of a body shop and not an addedexpense.If we can provide your office with additional information or clarify any item, please do nothesitate to contact me at ###-###-####.Enclosures:1. Estimates2. Photographsc: [redacted]Sincerely,Karen [redacted] [redacted]

So it says that the business address the issues within my complaint. I do not believe that to be true all they did was to affect their rating please they're unwilling to do anything?

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear.My dad spoke with the investigating officer who explained that he took several things into account and determined that I was 25% at fault just for being there and the other driver was found to be 75% at fault which is why she was cited and I was not. I may have been in the intersection in the process of making a turn but once she failed to stop for a red light it was actually her obligation to yield the right of way as stated by an eye witness. The officer may have listed it as that I failed to yield the right of way but once this proceeds to court and testimony is giving I'm quite sure that the Commissioner is going to ask the same question especially since the officer has stated that she was found to be 75% at fault and seeing that in the state of wisconsin I only have to show that she was 51% at fault to win my case it's going to cost Erie insurance a lot more then just the cost of my truck. I will also show that if anything else the officer made a mistake in that I should have been found to be inattentive driving and she should have been cited for failing to yield the right of way because once she decided to accelerate through a traffic light that was clearly red It was no longer my obligation to yield the right of way while I was in the process of making a legal turn.
Regards,
Steven [redacted]