This office represents Budget Charters, Incin connection with the above referencedcomplaintThe customer’s initial complaint was not made to BudgetCharters until March 30th some three days after the completion of the tripThe buswas thoroughly inspected and there was no fuel leakage on that bus All of the luggageis stored in an open cargo bay and any leak would have damaged other suitcases, both•on the trip at issue and thereafterAdditionally, others on the bus would havecomplained about the fumesHowever, here have been no further reports of leakageand continued monitoring of the bus evidences no leakage.Budget Charter responded promptly to the complaintThe complainantwas explicitly informed that the company would respond as soon as the bus returnedfrom its present trip and Budget was given an opportunity to look into the claim, whichwas several days laterIn spite of the fact investigation disclosed that there was nofuel leakage and no liability on the part of Budget Charters, the complainant wasinformed that Budget had informed its insurance carrier of the claim and been advisedthat if the suitcase and contents were damaged the insurance company would pay thereplacement cost of the suitcase and its contentsWhen Budget reported the incidentto its insurance carrier, the carrier requested the opportunity to inspect the damagedgoodsThe complainant was advised that the carrier would issue a check for damagespromptly upon receipt of the suitcase and adjustment of the claimThe complainantrefused to submit the suitcase to Budget, and therefore the insurance company has notbeen able to issue payment for the claimed damage.The complaint has apparently reported to your offices that she is havingthe suitcase professionally cleaned and will mail it to Budget Charters “if the items area total loss.” As I am sure you are aware, the insurance carrier is entitled to inspectthe alleged damage and to make its own independent determination as to whether there is a loss and, if so, the cause and extent of the lossThe complainant, byinexplicably and unilaterally deciding to have the suitcase cleaned, has deprivedBudget and its carrier of its right to inspect the claimed damage, thereby likely voidingany coverageHad the complainant promptly complied with Budget’s reasonable andstandard request for the suitcase, this matter likely would have been easily resolvedlong agoThe complainant’s unusual and unreasonable actions in refusing to permitBudget and its carrier to inspect the claimed damage cannot but raise questionsregarding the legitimacy of the claim.Finally, the complainant’s allegation that the bus was dirty is disputed.The bus in question was properly and thoroughly cleaned prior to the tripNo otherriders have complained about the uncleanliness of that busIn fact, Budget Chartershas never had a prior complaint that any of its buses were not properly cleaned priorto commencement of a trip.Verytruly yours, [redacted] /
This office represents Budget Charters, Incin connection with the above referencedcomplaintThe customer’s initial complaint was not made to BudgetCharters until March 30th some three days after the completion of the tripThe buswas thoroughly inspected and there was no fuel leakage on that bus All of the luggageis stored in an open cargo bay and any leak would have damaged other suitcases, both•on the trip at issue and thereafterAdditionally, others on the bus would havecomplained about the fumesHowever, here have been no further reports of leakageand continued monitoring of the bus evidences no leakage.Budget Charter responded promptly to the complaintThe complainantwas explicitly informed that the company would respond as soon as the bus returnedfrom its present trip and Budget was given an opportunity to look into the claim, whichwas several days laterIn spite of the fact investigation disclosed that there was nofuel leakage and no liability on the part of Budget Charters, the complainant wasinformed that Budget had informed its insurance carrier of the claim and been advisedthat if the suitcase and contents were damaged the insurance company would pay thereplacement cost of the suitcase and its contentsWhen Budget reported the incidentto its insurance carrier, the carrier requested the opportunity to inspect the damagedgoodsThe complainant was advised that the carrier would issue a check for damagespromptly upon receipt of the suitcase and adjustment of the claimThe complainantrefused to submit the suitcase to Budget, and therefore the insurance company has notbeen able to issue payment for the claimed damage.The complaint has apparently reported to your offices that she is havingthe suitcase professionally cleaned and will mail it to Budget Charters “if the items area total loss.” As I am sure you are aware, the insurance carrier is entitled to inspectthe alleged damage and to make its own independent determination as to whether there is a loss and, if so, the cause and extent of the lossThe complainant, byinexplicably and unilaterally deciding to have the suitcase cleaned, has deprivedBudget and its carrier of its right to inspect the claimed damage, thereby likely voidingany coverageHad the complainant promptly complied with Budget’s reasonable andstandard request for the suitcase, this matter likely would have been easily resolvedlong agoThe complainant’s unusual and unreasonable actions in refusing to permitBudget and its carrier to inspect the claimed damage cannot but raise questionsregarding the legitimacy of the claim.Finally, the complainant’s allegation that the bus was dirty is disputed.The bus in question was properly and thoroughly cleaned prior to the tripNo otherriders have complained about the uncleanliness of that busIn fact, Budget Chartershas never had a prior complaint that any of its buses were not properly cleaned priorto commencement of a trip.Verytruly yours, [redacted] /