Conexus Credit Union (Smeaton Branch)

Due to privacy issues, we are not able to discuss this claim in a public forum in detail We have paid the policyholder substantial amounts of money for both the building damages and their additional living expenses incurred to date We feel we have met our duties and obligations required under the policy of insurance and we continue to work with the policyholder in an attempt to resolve our differences amicably However, if we are unable to come to an agreement, there are policy and statutory avenues for dispute resolution available to the insured Sincerely,Vermont Mutual Claims Department

This claim concerns a March 9, fire loss that occurred at the insureds’ vacation home The “Customer’s Statement of the Problem” is replete with inaccuracies, misstatements and gross exaggerations Since the outset of this claim, the insureds have been represented by a public insurance adjuster, and in March 2015, they retained the services of an attorney to represent them in order to pursue a demand for appraisal/reference, since the parties have been unable to agree on the amount of loss While the “customer” has led the Revdex.com to believe that they are unsophisticated consumers who are being taken advantage of by an insurer, the “customer” failed to mention in the statement of the problem that he is a litigation attorney in a large New York law firm The “customer” has repeatedly reminded Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter known as “Vermont Mutual”) of his litigation prowess and has repeatedly threatened Vermont Mutual with litigation, should the company not capitulate to his demands From the outset of the claim, Vermont Mutual has conducted a reasonable, thorough and fair investigation and adjustment of this claimed loss Almost immediately following the loss, it was clear that the insureds desired to demolish the existing structure and build a new and larger home Based upon the information and advice it received in the context of the adjustment of the claimed loss, Vermont Mutual did not agree that the entire structure needed to be demolishedNotwithstanding that advice, during the course of the adjustment of this claim, Vermont Mutual agreed to expand the scope of its loss estimate to necessarily include the demolition of those areas of the home that the insureds claimed needed to be demolished (and which Vermont Mutual disagreed) for the sole purpose of reaching an agreement on the amount of loss on a replacement cost value basis, including code required repairs, demolition and debris removal This concession included the replacement of the framing for the master bedroom addition, which was part of the structure that was not directly damaged by the loss This concession/offer was made in good faith with the express intent of resolving this claim.Any perceived or alleged delays in the repair/reconstruction of the home was directly attributable to the insureds’ election and decision to demolish the entire structure and rebuild a new home that was considerably larger in size and that was resituated on the lot in question The insureds’ decision to construct a new and larger home has significantly complicated the adjustment process, as concerns identifying and delineating those building items which are appropriately and properly included in the loss measure and in those which should be excluded based on the insureds’ election to construct a larger dwelling On February 27, 2015, the insureds made a demand for appraisal/reference in accordance with applicable statute and under the terms and conditions of the policy Since that date, there have been numerous communications, as well as meetings of the parties, in an effort to reach an amicable resolution to this disputed loss Most recently, on May 25, 2016, Vermont Mutual received a new demand letter from the insureds’ counsel Vermont Mutual’s counsel, experts and representatives are in the process of responding to this most recent demand letter For a variety of privacy reasons, I will not detail the loss measure as calculated by Vermont Mutual Suffice to say, Vermont Mutual vehemently disputes the erroneous assertions outlined in the “Customer’s Statement of the Problem” Also, Vermont Mutual is puzzled as to why the insureds have chosen to submit a complaint to the Revdex.com at this juncture, when it knows, full well, that they are represented by counsel who has already taken steps to have the dispute, with respect to the amount of loss, determined by a three-member board of referees in accordance with Massachusetts statutes Vermont Mutual is likewise exasperated by the positions taken by the insureds in the context of this claim, and it remains Vermont Mutual’s desire to amicably resolve this claim with the insureds and avoid the time and expense associated with the reference/appraisal process However, if those efforts prove to be unsuccessful, Vermont Mutual is confident and satisfied that its loss measure and supported positions taken during the investigation and adjustment of this claimed loss will be ratified by the reference panel.If I can be of any further assistance with respect to this dispute and inquiry, please feel free to contact me at your convenience [redacted] Vermont Mutual Insurance Company [redacted] ** ***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below The letter issued on 6/22/clearly stated depreciation would be withheld at first and then paid to me when the repairs were completed If that's not the case, then the letter issued by Vermont Mutual was deceiving Regards, [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]

Hi ***, Per our phone conversation today, December 21, 2016, we could not locate a Vermont Mutual policy # for [redacted] *** We are closing this complaint.Thank you kindly[redacted] , CPIWState Filing TechnicianVermont Mutual Insurance Group® ** [redacted] *** [redacted] Montpelier, VT

October 11, Revdex.com of Eastern MA, ME, RI & VT Donald Lynch Boulevard, Suite Marlborough, MA 01752-Re: Revdex.com Complaint #: *** To whom it may concern, Please allow this to serve as follow up to the complainant’s rebuttalWe feel that the letter was not deceivingThis letter stated, in pertinent part “The policy pays the ACV initially, with depreciation being withheld until the work is completed and you show us your incurred expenses. We would then release any additional money, due you, up to the RCV. Of course, your deductible will always apply to the claim”. If the insured can document incurred expenses totaling more than the actual cash value of the damages, he would be entitled to collect up to the amount of depreciation that was withheld, depending on what he actually incurs for expensesAs of the writing of this response we have not received any additional documentation from the insured that he exceeded the actual cash value payment which was issuedAt this time, we feel we have met our duties and obligations required under the policy of insurance and we continue to work with the policyholder in an attempt to resolve any differences we may have Sincerely, Vermont Mutual Claims Department

To whom it may concern, Please allow this to serve as follow up to the complainant’s concernsWe inspected the loss with the insured’s father and prepared an estimate to complete the needed repairs. The insured was issued a payment, which represented the replacement cost value of the
damages, less depreciation and the insured’s policy deductible Along with the check, a letter outlining the settlement process and a copy of the adjuster’s estimate was included. This letter stated, in pertinent part “The policy pays the ACV initially, with depreciation being withheld until the work is completed and you show us your incurred expenses. We would then release any additional money, due you, up to the RCV. Of course, your deductible will always apply to the claim”To date, we have not received sufficient documentation from the insured which would demonstrate that he has incurred more than the actual cash value claim, and as such, at this time he would not be entitled to receive any recoverable depreciation. If the insured can document incurred expenses totaling more than the actual cash value of the damages, he would be entitled to collect up to the amount of depreciation that was withheld, depending on what he actually incurs for expensesAt this time, we feel we have met our duties and obligations required under the policy of insurance and we continue to work with the policyholder in an attempt to resolve any differences we may haveSincerely, Vermont Mutual Claims Department

I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #***I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
It is not our intention to repeat steps being taken in trying to reach a resolution.  Rather, our voicing our concerns and letting Revdex.com know how Vermont Mutual is treating its customers should be of great interest to consumers. We do not agree that Vermont Mutual has done "nothing wrong" as they claim.  However,it is our hope that it will continue working with us to reach a fair resolution.
Regards,
[redacted]

The claim for [redacted] was reported to Vermont Mutual on December 30, 2016 with a claimed loss date of December 20, 2016.  The reported loss involved a water pipe that froze and burst resulting in damage to three condominium units.  The loss notice did not...

reference the fact that any of the unit owners were without heat. Upon receipt of the notice an Independent Adjuster was assigned to inspect the claimed damages.  The adjuster immediately contacted the affected unit owners and an inspection of the property was scheduled for January 6, 2017 based on the unit owner’s availability.  At the time of the adjuster’s inspection, two of the affected unit owners had completed temporary repairs and had heat/hot water restored to their condominium units.  One of the unit owners had not contacted a plumbing contractor and did not have any repairs completed as of January 6, 2017.  The adjuster advised the unit owner to contact a plumbing/heating contractor and to obtain an estimate for repair or replacement of the damaged boiler and hot water heater. On January 9, 2017 an estimate was submitted by the unit owner for replacement of the damaged equipment.  The estimate was reviewed and a follow up inspection was scheduled by an engineering expert to confirm that the equipment required replacement as opposed to being repairable.  The engineering consultant contacted the unit owner on January 9, 2017 to schedule an inspection.  At the unit owner’s request, the inspection was conducted on January 12, 2017.  Upon completion of the inspection a report was provided by the engineering expert confirming that the heating equipment required replacement. The claim for [redacted] was paid on January 13, 2017 after the inspections were completed and estimates were provided for repairs to the building, including the heating system in one of the affected units. The resident of Unit #4 who filed the complaint has a policy with [redacted] Insurance Company which provides coverage for the individual unit, including any necessary additional living expenses which may have been incurred while the property was uninhabitable.  It is our understanding that a claim was filed with [redacted] Insurance Company by the affected unit owner. The Vermont Mutual policy provides coverage for the building damages to the property which is the responsibility of [redacted].  The Vermont Mutual policy does not directly insure the resident of the unit in question. The claim for damages to the [redacted] was reported to Vermont Mutual on December 30, 2016 and subsequently investigated and paid in a timely manner. Thanks. [redacted] Claim Examiner Vermont Mutual Insurance Group®   [redacted]  
[redacted]
 
[redacted]
[redacted]

I am responding back to your letter in regards to ID# [redacted]. [redacted] contacted [redacted] by phone to apologize and to negotiate with Mr. [redacted] dispute, but Mr. [redacted] response was that his [redacted] was stolen. Mr [redacted] also stated he was going to close...

or erase the case complaint due to his vehicle being stolen. Thank you, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
[redacted] 
[redacted]
[redacted]
 Ref: Complaint # [redacted] We are puzzled that Vermont Mutual has responded in a letter filled with general but false statements especially about its good faith.  Instead of addressing the specific facts included in the [redacted]'s filing, Vermont Mutual opted for personal attacks on the insureds by negative associations—he is a litigation attorney in a large New York firm—and by repeated references to a “new and larger home”. Mr. [redacted]’s journey from a poor immigrant family to Columbia Law School graduate and partner at a small New York firm (32 attorneys) should not be disparaged and our careful separation of costs attributable to the larger house from the costs attributable to the rebuild are completely ignored in Vermont Mutual’s false narrative.  If the [redacted]'s were interested in obfuscating the facts, they would not have mentioned in their filing that their new home was bigger.  The fact remains that for years the [redacted] family was paying premiums based on full replacement value and when it came time to honor its policy, only 70% of the stated value of the house was offered. The [redacted]’s house was a constructive total loss (“CTL”) after the fire with one room partially intact but exposed to heavy fire and water damage and then exposed for months to the elements. Every adjuster (including Vermont Mutual’s adjuster) decided the house was a  CTL but Vermont Mutual wanted the fire, rain soaked and black mold infested room to be saved in the rebuilding. Vermont Mutual was merely seeking to save a few bucks without regard to health issues among others. When Vermont Mutual’s adjuster referred the [redacted]’s for an impartial, independent assessment of rebuilding costs, it did not know how to respond when its representative said he agreed with the [redacted]’s adjuster. So Vermont Mutual, in a revealing show of bad faith, simply ignored the independent adjuster’s conclusion that the [redacted] adjuster had done a diligent and accurate calculation of rebuilding costs. When the [redacted]’s met with Vermont Mutual’s representatives and attorney and provided both written and oral statements supporting their calculation of costs—including that of their builder who was questioned for almost 30 minutes by conference call—Vermont Mutual responded four months later with a lump sum settlement proposal that covered less than 18% of the actual outstanding cost items.                                     ...⇄ On Friday, we received a revised settlement proposal from Vermont Mutual that significantly improves the prior offer. We intend to respond with a revised proposal and hopefully can resolve the matter. We can’t ignore the fact that by our going to the Revdex.com, Vermont Mutual has improved its offer. We thank the Revdex.com for its involvement and regret that Vermont Mutual resorted to personal attacks on us rather than address the issues fairly.

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]

This claim concerns a March 9, 2013 fire loss that occurred at the insureds’ vacation home.  The “Customer’s Statement of the Problem” is replete with inaccuracies, misstatements and gross exaggerations.  Since the outset of this claim, the insureds have been represented by a public...

insurance adjuster, and in March 2015, they retained the services of an attorney to represent them in order to pursue a demand for appraisal/reference, since the parties have been unable to agree on the amount of loss.  While the “customer” has led the Revdex.com to believe that they are unsophisticated consumers who are being taken advantage of by an insurer, the “customer” failed to mention in the statement of the problem that he is a litigation attorney in a large New York law firm.  The “customer” has repeatedly reminded Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter known as “Vermont Mutual”) of his litigation prowess and has repeatedly threatened Vermont Mutual with litigation, should the company not capitulate to his demands.  From the outset of the claim, Vermont Mutual has conducted a reasonable, thorough and fair investigation and adjustment of this claimed loss.  Almost immediately following the loss, it was clear that the insureds desired to demolish the existing structure and build a new and larger home.  Based upon the information and advice it received in the context of the adjustment of the claimed loss, Vermont Mutual did not agree that the entire structure needed to be demolished.. Notwithstanding that advice, during the course of the adjustment of this claim, Vermont Mutual agreed to expand the scope of its loss estimate to necessarily include the demolition of those areas of the home that the insureds claimed needed to be demolished (and which Vermont Mutual disagreed) for the sole purpose of reaching an agreement on the amount of loss on a replacement cost value basis, including code required repairs, demolition and debris removal.  This concession included the replacement of the framing for the master bedroom addition, which was part of the structure that was not directly damaged by the loss.  This concession/offer was made in good faith with the express intent of resolving this claim.Any perceived or alleged delays in the repair/reconstruction of the home was directly attributable to the insureds’ election and decision to demolish the entire structure and rebuild a new home that was considerably larger in size and that was resituated on the lot in question.  The insureds’ decision to construct a new and larger home has significantly complicated the adjustment process, as concerns identifying and delineating those building items which are appropriately and properly included in the loss measure and in those which should be excluded based on the insureds’ election to construct a larger dwelling.              On February 27, 2015, the insureds made a demand for appraisal/reference in accordance with applicable statute and under the terms and conditions of the policy.  Since that date, there have been numerous communications, as well as meetings of the parties, in an effort to reach an amicable resolution to this disputed loss.  Most recently, on May 25, 2016, Vermont Mutual received a new demand letter from the insureds’ counsel.  Vermont Mutual’s counsel, experts and representatives are in the process of responding to this most recent demand letter.  For a variety of privacy reasons, I will not detail the loss measure as calculated by Vermont Mutual.              Suffice to say, Vermont Mutual vehemently disputes the erroneous assertions outlined in the “Customer’s Statement of the Problem”.  Also, Vermont Mutual is puzzled as to why the insureds have chosen to submit a complaint to the Revdex.com at this juncture, when it knows, full well, that they are represented by counsel who has already taken steps to have the dispute, with respect to the amount of loss, determined by a three-member board of referees in accordance with Massachusetts statutes.  Vermont Mutual is likewise exasperated by the positions taken by the insureds in the context of this claim, and it remains Vermont Mutual’s desire to amicably resolve this claim with the insureds and avoid the time and expense associated with the reference/appraisal process.  However, if those efforts prove to be unsuccessful, Vermont Mutual is confident and satisfied that its loss measure and supported positions taken during the investigation and adjustment of this claimed loss will be ratified by the reference panel.If I can be of any further assistance with respect to this dispute and inquiry, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.         [redacted]Vermont Mutual Insurance Company [redacted]
[redacted]  **  [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted] I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved. 
Regards,
[redacted]

The parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations with the assistance of counsel. We feel that repeating the steps being taken in trying to reach a resolution on the Revdex.com forum does not serve to further the process.We maintain that we have done nothing wrong and the remaining disputed issues are being addressed in the proper forum.

Due to
privacy issues, we are not able to discuss this claim in a public forum in
detail.  We have
paid the policyholder substantial amounts of money for both the building
damages and their additional living expenses incurred to date.  We feel we have met our duties and
obligations...

required under the policy of insurance and we continue to work with
the policyholder in an attempt to resolve our differences amicably.  However, if we are unable to come to an
agreement, there are policy and statutory avenues for dispute resolution
available to the insured.    Sincerely,Vermont
Mutual Claims Department

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
The letter issued on 6/22/16 clearly stated depreciation would be withheld at first and then paid to me when the repairs were completed.  If that's not the case, then the letter issued by Vermont Mutual was deceiving. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Hi [redacted],  Per our phone conversation today, December 21, 2016,  we could not locate a Vermont Mutual policy # for [redacted].  We are closing this complaint.Thank you kindly.[redacted], CPIWState Filing TechnicianVermont Mutual Insurance Group® ** ...

[redacted] [redacted] [redacted]Montpelier, VT 05601

To whom it may concern, Please allow this to serve as follow up to the complainant’s rebuttal. Due to the inability to reach an agreed scope of damage with the Insured, after an extended period of time and inspections by our Independent adjuster, an engineering firm and our General Adjuster, we decided to engage a contractor to inspect the loss with our General Adjuster, the Insured, our Independent Adjuster, the Insured’s contractor and a local building inspector. After this most recent re-inspection, our contractor developed an estimate for the covered building damage totaling $87,784.56.  We applied appropriate depreciation and arrived at an Actual Cash Value of $70,227.65.  We then applied the policy deductible to this portion of the claim and issued payment for the balance owed on this undisputed building damage.  We have also paid $2,774 for asbestos removal and $27,249.77 for the water mitigation invoice.  To date, we have issued payments for the undisputed building damage, including the water mitigation invoice and asbestos removal invoice, totaling $99,751.42. In addition to the above estimate, we have also estimated the building Code related damages in the amount of $29,407.17, which would be payable once they have been completed and the cost for these repairs incurred. The insured has submitted multiple contractor estimates for the building repair and she indicated to us on August 28, 2015 that she has chosen the contractor who’s estimate totals $193,000.  This estimate was submitted to us on August 24, 2015.  Since submitting our contractor’s most recent estimate to the insured, she has been having a dialogue with our General Adjuster, via email, discussing issues she has with the estimate.  These emails are as recent as 4 business days ago (last Friday).  In regard to the insured’s Additional Living Expense (Loss of Use) claim, to date we have issued payments for this portion of the claim totaling $76,376.04.  We will continue to pay for the insured’s expenses that qualify under the policy for this portion of the claim, up to the Loss of Use policy limit.     In regard to the damage to the detached garage/apartment, we have issued payments for this damage totaling $8,543.84.  The insured believes that the damages are more than we have agreed to.  As we stated previously, we feel we have met our duties and obligations required under the policy of insurance and we continue to work with the policyholder in an attempt to resolve our differences amicably If we are unable to come to an agreement with the insured in regard to the value of the claim, there are policy and statutory avenues for dispute resolution available to the insured.  Sincerely, Vermont Mutual Claims Department