Cellular Central

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2014/05/29) */ This complaint was assigned to me for a review and responseI reviewed Mrand Mrs***'s policy related to the loss in question, July 23, 2013, on August 6, at the request of our Claims departmentAs part of Mrand Mrs ***'s policy review, I did review his policy application, all policy comments, transactions, endorsement, on-line typed conversations between Mr [redacted] and company representatives related to his policyI also reviewed every call between Mr [redacted] and company representatives and all policy declaration pages and endorsements for Mrand Mrs***'s policy Mrand Mrs [redacted] filed a claim for loss to personal property that was damaged by flooding in his basement due to a sump pump failureThe loss occurred at his rental homeDuring the initial call to the Company the representative immediately advised Mr [redacted] that there did not appear to be coverage for this lossMr [redacted] insisted that we review this furtherThe claim was transferred to one of the Company field adjusters who discussed the loss with the insured on 7/23/At that time Mr [redacted] explained that he had a basement flood due to the failure of the sump pumpHe further explained that during a recent storm he lost power to the sumpThe adjuster clarified that his Renter's policy Water exclusion specifically excludes water that overflows or is discharged from a sump pump unless the insured has the Water Back Up and Sump Discharge or Overflow endorsementDuring that conversation Mr [redacted] insisted we escalate the claim further and requested transcript copies of his conversations with the Sales agentHe demanded that we reconsider our position because he had made it clear to the Sales agent that he wanted full coverage for everything The field adjuster obtained Mr***'s recorded statement about the loss and his reasons why he believed he should have coverage for this lossMr [redacted] told the Company he had several contacts with Sales and each time he requested full coverage, including coverage for floodingHe also recalled the agent asking him if he had a sump pump to which he replied that he didAfter gathering Mr***'s information, his file was reviewed several times by a Home Office Claims Consultant and an Underwriting AnalystThese reviews included listening to the Sales calls and related documentationWe confirmed that Mr [redacted] mentioned he wanted all coverages 'including the kitchen sink' while discussing the Auto policy during the initial Sales contact on 3/29/There was no mention of this in any communications related to his Renter's policyHe contacted the Service Department on 6/26/to change the Renter's policy address to a new locationDuring each contact, the Sales or Service agent asked a number of basic questions about the property so we could evaluate the riskFollowing these communications with the insured a policy packet with the appropriate Declaration Page, Endorsements and required Pennsylvania documents was sent to Mr***'s given addressHe later claimed he only received the Auto packet but not the Renter'sHe told the Company he was receiving mail from both his old and his new addressMr [redacted] recalls that during one of his calls the agent asked him if he had a sump pumpWe have no record of any such conversation in our contacts with him, nor did he indicate to the Company that he had a basement or a sumpWe have provided Mr [redacted] with copies of his communications with the Sales agent so he is able to clarify what was actually discussedHe did call the Company at one point to ask if we offered flood coverageHe was advised the Company did not, however we could transfer him to the Company's Agency Services office who could discuss flood coverage options with himHe declined to be transferred Mr [redacted] pursued further escalation on this matterHe had several long telephone conversations with a Claims Team Manager and a Regional Claims ManagerHe insists that the Sales or Service agents should have asked more probing questions about whether he had a basement and a sump pumpHad the Company done so and offered the Water Back Up endorsement he states he would have added this coverage since price was not a concern for himThe Company advised him that the Sales process is not exhaustive and, like any carrier, the Company relies on the customer to raise pertinent concerns and to also review the policy packet to determine if they need any additional endorsements or coverageMr [redacted] is adamant that it was solely our responsibility to make sure he had the Water Back Up endorsement on his Renter's policy and does not appear inclined to accept any degree of responsibility on his part to evaluate his own coverage needs The Company offers many optional endorsements and not every insured needs every endorsementIt is ultimately the insured's responsibility to review their policy declarations, their policy contract and the list of optional endorsements that is mailed to every policyholder, and determine if additional coverage is neededThe list of optional endorsements that is mailed to every policyholder clearly shows a brief description of the optional endorsement and clearly places a check mark next to each optional endorsement selected by the insuredThe sump-pump endorsement was included on the list of optional endorsements mailed to Mr***The sump-pump endorsement was not checked that it applied to his policy and the sump-pump endorsement was not listed on Mrand Mrs***'s policy declarations pageCompany records did not indicate Mr [redacted] called in to add the endorsement or ask a question about the endorsement Mrand Mrs***'s claim was reviewed extensively and Mrand Mrs [redacted] were provided with the Company's decision on their claim and an explanation as to why the decision was madeUnless Mrand Mrs [redacted] have new information to provide the Company for review, the Claims decision will remain as what was previously communicated to Mrand Mrs*** Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2014/05/30) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I have spoken to a number of insurance lawyers, law professors and independent insurance underwriters about this issueIn accordance with what I was advised, I vehemently believe that I be compensated for my loss by California CasualtyI fully intent to pursue this matter to the fullest extent of the law and beyond if necessary Furthermore, prior to the incident I did not receive a declarations page and had even called in numerous times saying I did not receive a declarations page and other important missing documentationSo I was unable to review my policy on paper to see if everything I needed is covered However, the Revdex.com e-mail I received asked for some "Middle Ground"The actual full coverage amount maximum that CalCas should have paid in the first place is $5,To avoid bringing this any further, and to end this issue now I will be willing to concede to $1,and I am willing to entertain any monetary counter-offers CalCas is willing to makeI will also concede to a non-disclosure agreement if they so requestI will even concede to drop any other stipulations that I previously requested for $1,or best offer sent to my current address via certified check delivered by 19-June-4:30PM provided if its less than $I previously accept that offer That is a MORE THAN FAIR middle groundActually, it's significantly less than middleI also am stating for the record that this offer EXPIRES if they do not accept this before the Revdex.com closes the caseAs soon as the Revdex.com closes the case, and which point I file a lawsuit against CalCas, I will no longer accept this agreement Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2014/06/02) */ Mr [redacted] has submitted his complaint to the PA Insurance Department and we are currently working on responding to his complaint with the departmentThe Company will continue to work with the PA Insurance Department on Mr***'s complaintDue to the sensitive nature of the complaint, we will not respond on this forum to his request for a negotiation of the lossHe may contact the PA Insurance Department to review the status of his complaint and the Company's response once the Company replies to the PA Insurance Department

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/03/18) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Underwriti Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX Contact Email: [redacted] @calcas.com I have been asked to review and investigate the consumer's complaintTo summarize her complaint, the consumer received a marketing email from the CompanyThe consumer feels her work email should be used for education and business purposes onlyI have reviewed the consumer's complaint and offer the following response California Casualty is a group marketer who offers auto and home insurance to higher education employeesAs part of the marketing efforts, higher education employees receive various mailings regarding the availability of insuranceWhen federal guidelines allow, higher education employees may also receive a periodic email from the Company The consumer's employer has opted in to receive related promotions to their work email address and is "Do Not Call Compliant." California Casualty does allow consumers who do not want to receive marketing materials to opt out from any further emailsAt the bottom of every email the Company sends is a link that allows the consumer to opt out of the Company's emailsThe consumer will immediately be removed from our mailing list and will not be sent any further emails to that address I appreciate you bringing this matter to the attention of California Casualty and allowing the Company the opportunity to resolve the consumer's concernsCalifornia Casualty takes great pride in providing excellent customer service to current and future policyholders Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/07/02) */
July 2,
Revdex.com
RE: Revdex.com Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Consumer: *** ***
Quote Number: XXX-XXXXXXX
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been asked to review and investigate Mr***'s complaintTo
summarize his complaint, Mr*** received an invitation from the Company for a no-obligation quote and a $movie gift cardMr*** reports that after completing the quote and following up with the Company, he has not received the gift cardI have reviewed the consumer's complaint and offer the following response
On January 13, 2014, Mr*** contacted the Company to receive a no-obligation quote in response to a $movie gift card promotional offer mailed by California CasualtyTo be eligible for the gift card, the consumer is required to contact the Company for a quote and provide the priority number from the enclosed letter
During the conversation, Mr*** explained that he had recently moved and provided his new mailing address, *** S *** *** Ontario, CA XXXXXMr*** completed a quote for automobile insurance, which was not accepted, and provided the priority number for the $movie gift card
On April 29, 2014, the Company received a follcall from Mr*** where he advised he had completed a quote but had not received the gift cardThe Sales Representative mentioned she was not sure why he had not received the gift card, but she would send an email to the person in charge of Marketing
Every 2-weeks, California Casualty matches their mail file (prospects that were offered a gift card) to their responder file (people who received a quote and provided a Priority Number)When they "match" their responders to their mail file, they not only use the Priority Number match, but have an algorithm that also matches name and addressThis list is provided to their fulfillment vendor who fulfills the gift cardsThey are sent, via first class mail, from the vendor within weeks of receiving the file from California Casualty
Although Mr*** completed a quote and provided the priority number, the Company was unable to fulfill the gift card request due to a mismatch in Mr***'s name and addressCalifornia Casualty mailed the promotional offer to Mr*** with the listed information:
*** *** III, *** ** *** *** *** J, Anaheim, CA XXXXX
The Company's records reflect the quote was completed with the listed information:
Frank ***, *** S *** Ave, Ontario, CA XXXXX
Mr***'s name was never sent to the fulfillment vendor due to the mismatch in his name and address
On April 29, 2014, the Marketing Department received the email from the Sales Representative and requested additional information, such as a prior address to fulfill the gift card requestThis information was never provided, so the gift card request was not fulfilled
Upon receiving Mr***'s complaint, I was able to review the initial Sales conversation and confirm his prior addressOnce the Marketing Department was able to verify the mismatch of information, a gift card was immediately mailed to Mr***I have confirmed a gift card has been mailed to Mr*** at *** ** *** Ave, Ontario, CA XXXXX on June 30,
I appreciate you bringing this matter to the attention of California Casualty and allowing the Company the opportunity to resolve the consumer's concernsCalifornia Casualty takes great pride in providing excellent customer service to current and future policyholders
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance
Sincerely,
*** ***
Underwriting Analyst
Home Office Underwriting
Direct phone (XXX) XXX-XXXX
Fax (XXX) XXX-XXXX
Email: ***@calcas.com
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2014/07/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
CA Casualty Insurance did the right thing and mailed me the $gift card they promisedI just received itThank you

Excellent service, great pricing and friendly crew I would recommend to anyone

I have been with this company for about yearsThe company has handled any claim with efficiencyBest automotive insurance company I have ever been a part

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/11) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted]
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@calcas.com
Upon receipt of the correspondence from the Revdex.com, we immediately contacted the complainant. The complainant has not...

responded to our inquiries for the information needed to conclude the claim. Once the complainant makes contact with our office, we will begin to conclude the complainant's claims. We would request your assistance in reminding the complainant to return our calls so that we may resolve this claim directly with him.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
An email was sent to the CA Casualty agent recently, outlining the immediate obligation of loss of use that is easily resolved, as well as the issues that will have to be addressed at a later date. The information they are requesting should have been acquired through our insurance agency already, whom they have been corresponding with. After ignoring our attempts at contact for nearly six weeks, they should simply reimburse us for monies they repeatedly refused to provide for losing our transportation at the fault of their insured. That would resolve the current complaint, with further claims pending.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/08/18) */
California Casualty has reimbursed the complainant for loss of use. We continue to request telephone contact from the complainant to resolve outstanding items.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/01/04) */
I spoke to Mr. [redacted] last week and confirmed that he has received the two outstanding payments mentioned above. Mr. [redacted] also had some additional questions on a previous claim that we are looking into for him.
Initial...

Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2016/01/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/03/18) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Underwriti
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@calcas.com
I have been asked to review and investigate the consumer's complaint. To summarize her complaint, the consumer received a...

marketing email from the Company. The consumer feels her work email should be used for education and business purposes only. I have reviewed the consumer's complaint and offer the following response.
California Casualty is a group marketer who offers auto and home insurance to higher education employees. As part of the marketing efforts, higher education employees receive various mailings regarding the availability of insurance. When federal guidelines allow, higher education employees may also receive a periodic email from the Company.
The consumer's employer has opted in to receive related promotions to their work email address and is "Do Not Call Compliant."
California Casualty does allow consumers who do not want to receive marketing materials to opt out from any further emails. At the bottom of every email the Company sends is a link that allows the consumer to opt out of the Company's emails. The consumer will immediately be removed from our mailing list and will not be sent any further emails to that address.
I appreciate you bringing this matter to the attention of California Casualty and allowing the Company the opportunity to resolve the consumer's concerns. California Casualty takes great pride in providing excellent customer service to current and future policyholders.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/05/29) */
This complaint was assigned to me for a review and response. I reviewed Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s policy related to the loss in question, July 23, 2013, on August 6, 2013 at the request of our Claims department. As part of Mr. and Mrs....

[redacted]'s policy review, I did review his policy application, all policy comments, transactions, endorsement, on-line typed conversations between Mr. [redacted] and company representatives related to his policy. I also reviewed every call between Mr. [redacted] and company representatives and all policy declaration pages and endorsements for Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s policy.
Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] filed a claim for loss to personal property that was damaged by flooding in his basement due to a sump pump failure. The loss occurred at his rental home. During the initial call to the Company the representative immediately advised Mr. [redacted] that there did not appear to be coverage for this loss. Mr. [redacted] insisted that we review this further. The claim was transferred to one of the Company field adjusters who discussed the loss with the insured on 7/23/13. At that time Mr. [redacted] explained that he had a basement flood due to the failure of the sump pump. He further explained that during a recent storm he lost power to the sump. The adjuster clarified that his Renter's policy Water exclusion specifically excludes water that overflows or is discharged from a sump pump unless the insured has the Water Back Up and Sump Discharge or Overflow endorsement. During that conversation Mr. [redacted] insisted we escalate the claim further and requested transcript copies of his conversations with the Sales agent. He demanded that we reconsider our position because he had made it clear to the Sales agent that he wanted full coverage for everything.
The field adjuster obtained Mr. [redacted]'s recorded statement about the loss and his reasons why he believed he should have coverage for this loss. Mr. [redacted] told the Company he had several contacts with Sales and each time he requested full coverage, including coverage for flooding. He also recalled the agent asking him if he had a sump pump to which he replied that he did. After gathering Mr. [redacted]'s information, his file was reviewed several times by a Home Office Claims Consultant and an Underwriting Analyst. These reviews included listening to the Sales calls and related documentation. We confirmed that Mr. [redacted] mentioned he wanted all coverages 'including the kitchen sink' while discussing the Auto policy during the initial Sales contact on 3/29/13. There was no mention of this in any communications related to his Renter's policy. He contacted the Service Department on 6/26/13 to change the Renter's policy address to a new location. During each contact, the Sales or Service agent asked a number of basic questions about the property so we could evaluate the risk. Following these communications with the insured a policy packet with the appropriate Declaration Page, Endorsements and required Pennsylvania documents was sent to Mr. [redacted]'s given address. He later claimed he only received the Auto packet but not the Renter's. He told the Company he was receiving mail from both his old and his new address. Mr. [redacted] recalls that during one of his calls the agent asked him if he had a sump pump. We have no record of any such conversation in our contacts with him, nor did he indicate to the Company that he had a basement or a sump. We have provided Mr. [redacted] with copies of his communications with the Sales agent so he is able to clarify what was actually discussed. He did call the Company at one point to ask if we offered flood coverage. He was advised the Company did not, however we could transfer him to the Company's Agency Services office who could discuss flood coverage options with him. He declined to be transferred.
Mr. [redacted] pursued further escalation on this matter. He had several long telephone conversations with a Claims Team Manager and a Regional Claims Manager. He insists that the Sales or Service agents should have asked more probing questions about whether he had a basement and a sump pump. Had the Company done so and offered the Water Back Up endorsement he states he would have added this coverage since price was not a concern for him. The Company advised him that the Sales process is not exhaustive and, like any carrier, the Company relies on the customer to raise pertinent concerns and to also review the policy packet to determine if they need any additional endorsements or coverage. Mr. [redacted] is adamant that it was solely our responsibility to make sure he had the Water Back Up endorsement on his Renter's policy and does not appear inclined to accept any degree of responsibility on his part to evaluate his own coverage needs.
The Company offers many optional endorsements and not every insured needs every endorsement. It is ultimately the insured's responsibility to review their policy declarations, their policy contract and the list of optional endorsements that is mailed to every policyholder, and determine if additional coverage is needed. The list of optional endorsements that is mailed to every policyholder clearly shows a brief description of the optional endorsement and clearly places a check mark next to each optional endorsement selected by the insured. The sump-pump endorsement was included on the list of optional endorsements mailed to Mr. [redacted]. The sump-pump endorsement was not checked that it applied to his policy and the sump-pump endorsement was not listed on Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s policy declarations page. Company records did not indicate Mr. [redacted] called in to add the endorsement or ask a question about the endorsement.
Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s claim was reviewed extensively and Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] were provided with the Company's decision on their claim and an explanation as to why the decision was made. Unless Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] have new information to provide the Company for review, the Claims decision will remain as what was previously communicated to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted].
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/05/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have spoken to a number of insurance lawyers, law professors and independent insurance underwriters about this issue. In accordance with what I was advised, I vehemently believe that I be compensated for my loss by California Casualty. I fully intent to pursue this matter to the fullest extent of the law and beyond if necessary.
Furthermore, prior to the incident I did not receive a declarations page and had even called in numerous times saying I did not receive a declarations page and other important missing documentation. So I was unable to review my policy on paper to see if everything I needed is covered.
However, the Revdex.com e-mail I received asked for some "Middle Ground". The actual full coverage amount maximum that CalCas should have paid in the first place is $5,000.00. To avoid bringing this any further, and to end this issue now I will be willing to concede to $1,500.00 and I am willing to entertain any monetary counter-offers CalCas is willing to make. I will also concede to a non-disclosure agreement if they so request. I will even concede to drop any other stipulations that I previously requested for $1,500 or best offer sent to my current address via certified check delivered by 19-June-2014 4:30PM provided if its less than $1500 I previously accept that offer.
That is a MORE THAN FAIR middle ground. Actually, it's significantly less than middle. I also am stating for the record that this offer EXPIRES if they do not accept this before the Revdex.com closes the case. As soon as the Revdex.com closes the case, and which point I file a lawsuit against CalCas, I will no longer accept this agreement.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/06/02) */
Mr. [redacted] has submitted his complaint to the PA Insurance Department and we are currently working on responding to his complaint with the department. The Company will continue to work with the PA Insurance Department on Mr. [redacted]'s complaint. Due to the sensitive nature of the complaint, we will not respond on this forum to his request for a negotiation of the loss. He may contact the PA Insurance Department to review the status of his complaint and the Company's response once the Company replies to the PA Insurance Department.

Look at [redacted] and [redacted], this business has horrible reviews. They have no personal service. They have NO actual claims agents. They have YOU do all the leg work for them--take photos of the damage of the outside of your car, upload them yourself to their "app", and then they send them to an online third party who low [redacted] your replacement parts with "used" parts they found online--even if your car was in mint condition when the accident occurred. BEWARE...stay away, they don't care about their customers...just their bottom line.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/05/30) */
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I am a Team Manager in the Claims Department of California Casualty Management Company. One of my job responsibilities is to investigate complaints such as this. Please accept the...

following as my response to the allegations.
The insured contacted California Casualty and reported two water discharge claims from faulty plumbing systems in April, 2014. It was explained to the insured that although the coverage under the subject insurance policy does not allow for repair of a plumbing system due to wear and tear and deterioration issues, coverage for the resultant water damage was accepted. With the insured's permission, we arranged for a vendor through a managed repair network to affect all water and mold remediation to the dwelling which has been completed. We have issued payment for the water remediation and await the invoice for the mold remediation so payment can be made regarding this aspect of the loss. The same vendor provided an estimate of repair for the interior dwelling damage once remediation was completed. We have issued an actual cash value payment to the insured for repair of the estimated damage based upon that contractor's repair estimate less the policy deductible. We have sent the insured a letter explaining the loss settlement provisions of the policy and how he can recover payment for the withheld depreciation. We have advised the insured that he can choose the vendor of his choice to affect the repair to the dwelling but all repair estimates for insurance settlement purposes must relect materials that are like, kind and quality to those that were damaged.
During the time the insured's dwelling was not livable due to the mold, we arranged for a hotel for the insured to reside in and agreed to pay for the hotel expesne as well as any food expense over what the insured would normally incur for the same. We are in the process of gathering all receipts for these expneses so payment can be extended to the insured.
Based upon my review of the claim files, it sure appears the claims have been handled appropriately and claim payments have been issued appropriately. Our claims adjuster remains in contact with the insured and will do so until both claims are completely resolved. If you require further information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/06/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Work is slowly being done, and now I am recieving checks for various amounts of money and no explanation as to what they are for. My wife e-mailed the adjuster regarding these checks and the response was very vague. My Wife did a return e-mail for clarification, along with unanswered phone calls to the adjuster.At this point we are holding to some of the checks as we are still in the dark as to what they are for.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/06/13) */
The handling adjuster has spoken with Mr. [redacted] on several occasions regarding the adjustment of his 2 claims and has e-mailed him on seveal occasions with payment explanations. To assist Mr. [redacted] in understanding all payments that have been issued to date on both claims submitted, I have e-mailed him a complete Statement of Loss reconciling the loss exposures and payments. Both the handling adjuster and I are available to Mr. [redacted] if he has any further questions regarding the loss(es)and payments extended to date.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2014/06/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/23) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted] TM
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@calcas.com
Ms. [redacted],
Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to review our file handling and respond to Ms. [redacted]'s inquiry dated...

7/22/15. California Casualty takes customer complaints very seriously, as we do our relationship with your department.
Insurance owes the actual cash value of vehicle that is determined to be an economic total loss. A local market study was used to derive the current actual cash value of the loss vehicle. This research takes into account multiple variances such as asking price, mileage and option differences. The loss vehicle was compared to 8 vehicles all within 65 miles of her location. These vehicles matched in year, make and model. Adjustments were made for the variances in options and mileage. The method or means in determining the fair market value of the loss vehicle is in accordance with the permitted methods of valuation as required by the State of Ohio as outlined in OH ST s 4505.11; OH ADC XXXX-X-XX.
As Ms. [redacted] indicated she wanted to retain the vehicle and repair it, a salvage bid was obtained on 4/27/15. The bid is based on historical auction sales of similar vehicles within 90 days of the loss date. The Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles requires a salvage title on all retained totals, along with a salvage inspection conducted at a Highway Patrol Inspection Station. This state requirement is in place to protect consumers.
If Ms. [redacted] believes the market value of the 2007 Lexus to be $14,500, she has been instructed to provide us with supporting comparable vehicles and research. These must meet the same perimeters as the report we presented and meet the Ohio requirements.
She was issued a check for the owner retained amount of $8586.56. We ask that Ms. [redacted] provide us with her supporting documentation on value. While we cannot waive the Ohio salvage title laws or alter the salvage value, we are certainly willing to review her documentation. We ask that she direct her correspondence to the adjuster [redacted], who has been eager to resolve the claim since 4/27/15
Thank you for your time and attention.