Church Mutual Insurance

[redacted] called me yesterday, faxed over the papers for me to have notorized and sign I scanned and emailed them backLater, she sent me an email information me that the check would be overnighted yesterday and I should have it today Thank you

I recieved it, thank you

I recieved it, thank you.

[redacted] called me yesterday, faxed over the papers for me to have notorized and sign.  I scanned and emailed them back. Later, she sent me an email information me that the check would be overnighted yesterday and I should have it today.
 
Thank you

Review: [redacted]

True Worshipper Ministries

Or

RE: Claim No. [redacted]

Policy No. [redacted] 28

To whom it may concern,

A call was made by [redacted] on Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 5:55 p.m. and spoke to [redacted]. On this day it was the first time of noticing the sanctuary. The very next day early in the morning a text was received saying that the sanctuary would not be covered. This text message had come from [redacted]. This same day a few calls were then made within hours apart to request someone to at least be sent out to look at the damages. There was no returned call after reaching out for that entire week. It should have been a more proper way of procedure before an automatic assumption was made. Later, after next week another call was made early in the morning to speak with [redacted], after no call was returned, so I waited and then called back after 3:20 p.m. again to only get her answering machine. I felt she had no interest in returning any phone calls. I then called back into the main office to report how long I had called in for a full week and the prior week with no return calls, I was then told that she was available and in her office.

I gave the main office at Church Mutual the claim number on file and requested for someone else to help with it. I shared we been in service for years and pay over 1, 400 quarterly, the person who picked up the phone had said it’s been for 11 years. Afterwards there was an agreement made to have an inspector come out. It was not even less than two minutes later after I had hung up with Church Mutual, [redacted] had called me back for the first time. I told her I just hung up with Church Mutual and had called all week plus reached out at least 3 times calling on that day. I then had explained to her that I’ve felt like I was being avoided and for all of that time to come by and for her now to call it was not right. The other person I spoke to with Church Mutual had met my request. Now less than 10 more minutes I get a call from [redacted] to come out and look at the sanctuary on February 18, 2016. I met [redacted] outside of the church before we went in he had questioned the age of the church. As we went in he asked me about calling in, he said they usually send him out for the smallest claim. Was told that the person who did answer the phones must only be one who answer calls. [redacted] came in and had taken many pictures, told me that he had come to the church before to ensure it.

[redacted] stated he would need to get up on the roof, and if any slate was missing it would change for it being covered, and had expressed this isn’t from snow. I told him it was heavy wind when it snowed, and had heavy wind before it had snowed. He said he was going to be bringing in an engineer. [redacted] asked have anyone been on the roof at all since this notice. I told him no, I been trying to get someone to get out to have a look at it all week. He asked me then who had I called and I told him [redacted]. I called [redacted] back to address why would there exactly be need of an engineer coming instead of a qualified roofer. Due to the fact that pictures were already taken other than the sanctuary. He said that they would pay for it the next weekend, so don’t be concerned.

[redacted] called Thursday saying that he wanted to go up with an engineer and to try to complete this the next day on Friday. He spoke with the head Pastor, who then requested that another roofer he knew of would go up to look with them. The roofer name was [redacted] from Roofing & Construction, whose telephone is (717) 658-9845. [redacted] met with [redacted], [redacted] (insurance adjuster for Church Mutual), [redacted] telephone number is (610) 695-9600, and the engineer company name was [redacted] Associates, Inc. Outside of [redacted] going up to take a look at the roof, all of the rest went up. [redacted] had expressed to the engineer that the church was very upset. [redacted] (roofer) shared that there were blown away tiles that were missing to [redacted]. At this time [redacted] told [redacted] that it would not be his decision to make but the final decision will be made by Church Mutual.

On Friday, March 4, 2016 after waiting I spoke to [redacted] and he said the engineer had just finished his report a few days ago. I told we have had some very heavy wind this whole week and I reminded him what he had said to me about if slate was missing it should be covered. I called and talk to [redacted] again on March 18, 2016 because we had not received any correspondence at this time. [redacted] had shared with me at this time that this was the same damage they had took pictures of back in 2014, and there were records of pictures from this. I told him then that we didn’t have any type of damage like that in this same area. [redacted] had paused and stated “he needs to go back and look.” I then said it was a very small area that the pictures was of on a different floor that they refused to cover back then.

I also spoke to someone in the office about the matter and they said that they saw that correspondence was sent out to be reviewed on March 15, 2016. I was told that it would take at least five business days to receive the information that had been sent. It has been over that period of time because it was March the 18, 2016. After hanging up with being on the phone with Church Mutual, I then immediately contacted the Revdex.com to get input on the situation. I was given an address to send in a complaint to the Revdex.com.

On this same day suddenly after [redacted] had called me and told me that it was denied, I told her that I didn’t agree. [redacted] response was that I would have need to explain and would have to be put it in writing if I didn’t agree with her decision. I don’t feel Jessica should have been the one to make the final decision to have handled the claim anymore after avoided my telephone calls, for lack of reaching out to keep us updated which led to no sense of fairness involved. I knew I had to wait to receive the full report to get an understanding at this time, myself as being the Co. [redacted], [redacted], and the church is requesting that no payments will be made out until this matter is resolved. If there were any questions or concerns please reach out to us ([redacted] & Co. [redacted]) via email those addresses are [redacted]Desired Settlement: I would really appreciate if this company would take a second look on reconsideration for the decision that was made early.

Business

Response:

Thank for your correspondence dated February 1, 2016, received by Church Mutual on April 12, 2016 through the Wisconsin Revdex.com as an inquiry regarding the adjustment of your claim. We appreciate the opportunity to review this matter and respond. The following paragraphs outline the activities regarding the claim for damage to the church building located at [redacted] 2/7/16 Church Mutual received notice of the claim reported as damage to the building due to the weight of ice and snow. 2/8/16 The claim was assigned to Claims Representative [redacted] for handling. Ms. [redacted] reviewed the A125 policy that provided coverage for the building. Ms. [redacted] sent an email to you and advised that damage due to the weight of ice and snow would not be covered under the policy. Ms. [redacted] also called and left a voice message advising of same. 2/12/16 You contacted Church Mutual by telephone and spoke with Supervisor [redacted]. At that time, you requested a field inspection. Ms. [redacted] agreed to the field inspection, explained the A125 policy coverage, and advised of your duty to protect the building from further damage. 2/18/16 The building was inspected by a field adjuster who confirmed water damage to the structure. Church Mutual requested the assistance of an engineer to investigate the loss and determine the cause of loss. 3/6/16 Church Mutual received the report of the engineer’s inspection. The engineer report stated that leaks in the roof were caused by deterioration of the roof system that pre-existed the purchase of the building. 3/18/16 You contacted Church Mutual by telephone and spoke with Claims Representative Missy [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] explained the provisions of your policy as it related to this claim. After carefully reviewing all of the file documentation, Church Mutual’s position remains unchanged. We regret the church incurred this loss; however, we believe the claim was handled appropriately and according to the provisions of the policy. If there is anything you believe we have overlooked or not considered, please forward those items to my attention. Upon receipt, I will respond to you within two business days. You may contact us at (800) 554-2642, select Option 2, and enter Extension 4622 or direct at (715) 539-4622. Sincerely, [redacted] Property Claims Supervisor Church Mutual Insurance Company

Review: There client hit my car on June 25th and the claim was filed on that day. Myself and allstate my insurance has been in constant contact with church mutual. I have talked with [redacted] a claims rep, [redacted] the claims rep that is assigned to my claim, [redacted] a manager that in the beginning seemed to want to help since then has been giving me the run around, [redacted] the claims manager that has said he is helping but nothing has changed. I was told about an appraiser coming out to look at my vehicle and I contacted the company and person to find out that he didn't work for the company and not to contact him again. church mutual finally sent someone and he filed the report and they made him come back out on 7/7/14 to take more pictures. The report has been completed to finalized this claim and they are dragging there feet. I have called everyday since this accident happen and received so much different and wrong information its sad. My claim number is [redacted]. This company is dragging there feet on settling this claim and I am beyond frustrated.Desired Settlement: finish the claim now and compensate me for my loss!

Consumer

Response:

[redacted] called me yesterday, faxed over the papers for me to have notorized and sign. I scanned and emailed them back. Later, she sent me an email information me that the check would be overnighted yesterday and I should have it today.

Review: We have had a house insured with Church mutual for 28 years. House burned down about six months ago.

church mutual has yet to pay a penny to rebuild this house. They claim they want to pay. they have a detailed line item estimate from my contractor. They claim discrepancies but wont list what they are. They claim overstated valuation but wont list what items are overvalued. They want depreciation calculated by my contractor on the remaining debris that has been exposed to the weather for 6 months. Contractors don't do depreciation, but their adjuster did at the outset for some reason they wont use his percentages. we had full replacement insurance. depreciation should not be an issue to drag ones feet on.Desired Settlement: Give us a clear path to settle this claim, six months is too long.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to your request for further information on the above referenced claim. Specifically, I have been working on behalf of Church Mutual Insurance Company in an effort to gather additional information in regard to this claim. Historically, this claim involves a one story frame structure with rock veneer single family residence, [redacted]. The complainant and his family reside in Mustang, Oklahoma. In the past, they have allowed various people to stay in the home. Additionally, throughout the years, the home has been utilized as a rental property. However, the property has been vacant and unoccupied since 2010. As you know, the home was the subject of arson on May 12, 2015. Specifically, independent cause and origin investigator, [redacted] & Associates, determined the point of origin of the fire was on the front porch, on the exterior of the structure. It was also determined the cause of the fire was intentional by use of a gasoline accelerant. The determined ignition source was an open flame. No one was present at the time of the fire. The gas and electric utilities had been turned off to the house prior to the fire. The fire originated on the front porch and extended up an exterior wall and into the attic space. The roof structure sustained heavy damage and collapsed into the structure.The investigation into this claim was prudent under the circumstances. Specifically, Church Mutual Insurance Company was requested to preserve the scene until the local fire marshal could complete his investigation. Throughout the process, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of the status of the claim. At this point, Church Mutual has completed its investigation and is ready to issue payment to the insured despite the fact that the local authorities have not yet closed their investigation into this arson fire. On August 27, 2015, Mr. [redacted] was requested to complete a Proof of Loss on behalf of Gospel Chapel Church. On that same day, he was informed that the local authorities had released the scene and he could begin debris removal. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] was informed that if he needed an advance payment for debris removal, he simply needed to provide an estimate from a local demolition contractor and appropriate payment would be issued. To assist Mr. [redacted] in completion of the Proof of Loss, a sample was provided for his review. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] provided a Proof of Loss that necessitated review and adjustment. The review and adjustment has been completed and forwarded to Mr. [redacted] for his input. At this point, Church Mutual is waiting for a response from Mr. [redacted] before this claim can proceed further. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at my office, [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Church Mutual fails continually when it comes to taking care of medical expenses (even when court ordered) in a timely fashion. On multiple occasions they have delayed filling costly prescriptions causing severe withdrawal symptoms. These particular prescriptions are ones that I have been on for almost a year, but they cause problems every month with the refill.