Crowne Plaza Louisville Airport

Obviously, someone does not know how to read doctor's notes. The note on 7/30/16 clearly states that she has laryngeal paralysis and that the lateral chest X-ray shows a normal cardiac silhouette. At no place in the 7/30/16 notes was pneumonia even mentioned. As I mentioned when I spoke to the rep, I never had these issues when it was VPI and now that it has been taken over by Nationwide, I am having issues. I am hugely disappointed in Nationwide. They have lost a customer since I will not be insuring my new puppy with them. I will also not recommend Nationwide to friends, family, and other dog training professionals. So much for being a loyal customer for 15 years.
Regards, [redacted]

The PDF form of Titan's does NOT show my signature.  I want to see MY ORIGINALLY SIGNED DOCUMENT, and I will know if it is my signature.  Anyone can leave the signature blank and fill out/type out the info, but WHERE'S MY SIGNATURE?  Besides, none of this was said to me...MY DOWN PAYMENT WAS TO START MY VEHICLE INSURANCE.  If I was told any of this about yearly purchase of insurance, early cancellation crap, etc., etc., I NEVER, IN MY LIFE, WOULD EVER HAVE PURCHASED SUCH TRASH.  Cannot believe this is being done.  What corruption!  The media really does need to get involved in this doings, and get the word out to people re this disgusting stuff they are doing.  It was my belief that I was buying regular/normal vehicle insurance for my car AND NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I EVER RAN ACROSS CAR INSURANCE WHERE YOU HAD TO SIGN UP FOR A YEAR.  WHAT CRAP!  PEOPLE SELL THEIR CARS SOMETIMES, WHAT KIND OF PRACTICE IS THIS.  Once again, I NEVER WAS TOLD ANYTHING RE YEARLY PURCHASE FOR VEHICLE INSURANCE.  I would have gotten right up and walked out that door.  My old Farmer's Insurance told me I'd be sorry when I told them I insured with Titan.  But, I never signed documents WITH MY SIGNATURE ON IT, to receive insurance in this manner.  If this is NOT SETTLED, I am contacting every news media I can think of so they can get the word out to the people.  I thought Nationwide was probably a great company, boy that's a joke.  BUT ALL THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS.  I've worked for lots of insurance companies, [redacted], with [redacted] (AUTO SECTION), and a couple more and never anything like this.  They had normal policies.  THIS IS INSANE!  ALL THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THIS COMPANY ONCE AND FOR ALL.  Regards, [redacted]

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a complaint you received from our insured, Dan W[redacted].  I reviewed the complaint and the claim file and would like to address Mr. W[redacted]’s concerns.    This claim was handled under a Farmowner’s Policy underwritten by Nationwide...

Agribusiness Insurance (Nationwide).  This policy originally incepted on November 11, 2009.  On April 21, 2017, Mr. W[redacted] had a 2017 [redacted] with Loader B4122 & Mower added to the policy.  The tractor had a limit of $21,050.00 and a deductible of $2,500.00.    A claim was reported for a loss on July 19, 2017.  Claims Specialist Michael Charles C[redacted] spoke with Mr. W[redacted] on July 20th to discuss the details of the loss.  Mr. W[redacted] explained that he was moving something with the tractor and had the item in the bucket when the item rolled out and hit the hood of the tractor causing damage.  There was damage to the hood, the bucket joystick, cluster gauge and the plastic around the steering wheel.  Mr. C[redacted] went over the coverages which included $10,000.00 in rental, $5,000.00 for Extra Expense/Continuing Operations, and a $2,500.00 deductible.  An inspection would be performed to evaluate the damages.  On July 25th, Mr. C[redacted] spoke with Mr. W[redacted] and Mr. W[redacted] advised that there was a dispute over the amount of the deductible.  Until the dispute was settled, he didn’t want to move forward with the claim.  An investigation was being conducted by the Agency Support unit to determine if there had been an error on the behalf of the Agent’s office when the tractor was added to the policy as Mr. W[redacted] had not intended for the deductible to be $2,500.00.    On August 11th, Mr. C[redacted] contacted Mr. W[redacted] and informed him that the Agency Support investigation was complete and they found no error on the part of the Agent.  The deductible would remain at $2,500.00.  Mr. W[redacted] was upset and did not want anything done on the claim.  He advised that he intended to contact the Revdex.com, the Department of Insurance, and [redacted].    On August 15th, Mr. C[redacted] spoke with Mr. W[redacted] again.  He went over the settlement with him.  The repair estimate came to $3,436.22.  After the deductible of $2,500.00 was taken, Nationwide owed a balance of $936.22.  Mr. C[redacted] advised that he would be issuing a payment to Mr. & Ms. W[redacted] and their repair facility for $936.22.  The payment was issued on August 18, 2017 (check #[redacted]) to Heather & Dan W[redacted] & [redacted].  The claim is now closed.    If you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to contact Customer Advocacy Coordinator Yvette S[redacted] at ###-###-#### or via e-mail at [redacted].    Sincerely,  Julie C[redacted] Claims Specialist III / MD Centralized Services Analytics & Customer Focus Team NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE

I am writing in response to the complaint from [redacted] regarding the NationwideFlexible Premium Variable Universal Life Insurance policy referenced above. This matter wasforwarded to Nationwide's Office of Compliance for review and handling. I appreciate yourpatience while we completed our...

review.Our records indicate that policy # [redacted] is a Nationwide Choicelife Protection FlexiblePremium Variable Universal Life Insurance policy that was issued on April 17, 2000 withinitial specified amount of $75,000 on the life o[redacted]. This policy has an insurancecomponent and an investment component; however. its primary intended purpose is to providelife insurance coverage until the maturity date stated in the contract.One of the most notable features of this policy is its premium flexibility. After payment of theMinimum Initial Premium, which is required in order to put the policy in force, payment ofadditional premiums is solely at the discretion of the policyholder. Rather than remaining inforce due to the timely payment of a fixed or scheduled premium, the policy remains in forcefor as long as there is enough Net Cash Surrender Value to pay the monthly charges (thisrepresents the cost of insurance, administrative charges and the cost of any riders).The policy is designed to provide flexibility in connection with premium payments, investmentoptions and death benefits. The policy owner has the right to vary the frequency and amountof premium payments, to allocate net premiums among the various Separate Accounts orGuaranteed Account, to increase or decrease the death benefit, or to change the death benefitoption, according to policy provisions. This is not a fixed premium life insurance contract. Theaccount value of the policy is allocated to the sub-accounts selected. The value of theunderlying sub-accounts fluctuate daily depending upon market performance and are notguaranteed.Our records indicate that this policy went into a "lapse pending" status in April 2016.  A lapsenotice was mailed to Mr. Amstrong on April 17, 2016 informing him that unless sufficientpremium was received by June 17, 2016, the policy would terminate. A reminder was thensent on May 17, 2016 and the final lapse notice was sent on June 23, 2016. Mr. [redacted]chose to pay a monthly premium of $25 per month throughout the life of the policy leaving itwith insufficient value to cover the cost of insurance.Enclosed is a copy of the application (Exhibit. A) for policy [redacted], and the policy itself(Exhibit B), given to Mr. [redacted] at issue. Each of these documents contain disclosuresrelating to the nature of this policy, including that the policy values could increase or decreasein accordance with the investment experience of the Separate Accounts and may increase inaccordance with the Interest credited to the Guaranteed Account, as well as statements withregard to the cost of insurance in relation to policy cash value.After policy [redacted] was issued, Mr. [redacted] had a period of 10 days to review thepolicy. Within those 10 days the policy could have been canceled with a refund of premium.In reviewing our records, we cannot find any information that would lead us to believe thatMr. [redacted] expressed any dissatisfaction with the policy during the examination period.In addition, since issuance of the policy, statements have been mailed to Mr. [redacted] on aquarterly and an annual basis indicating policy values, withdrawals, gains/losses, as well ascurrent surrender value.Based on our review, we feel that the terms and conditions of this policy were adequatelydisclosed to Mr. [redacted] at the time of purchase and find no basis to offer any type ofadjustment to policy [redacted]. If there is any other documentation you would like us toconsider, please forward it to my attention and we will review it thoroughly.We appreciate your patience in this matter. Should you have any further questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.Sincerely,Jeremy W[redacted]

Dear [redacted]This letter is in response to our second follow up letter that was sent on March 6, 2015. We are aware of [redacted]’s concerns and have completed a thorough investigation and are confident that our liability decision is accurate. We have taken the necessary steps to evaluate this claim and the damages to both parties’ vehicles. With regard to [redacted]’s concerns of physical damage to his auto, the picture reveals damage to his vehicle which appears to be from an impact of some kind but is not consistent with damage from a vehicle. Nor does the picture show any paint transfer that would be consistent with damage from a red car door. Furthermore, we have determined, based on the evidence submitted, that our insured vehicle did not cause damage to [redacted] vehicle. There is no damage to our insured vehicle and no paint chips that would suggest impact with another object or vehicle. [redacted] took his vehicle to one of our preferred shops for an estimate.  This was not an authorization for repairs. At no point in time did we advise [redacted] that we would extend coverage for his damages.  Our investigation was ongoing and no liability decision had been made on this file. [redacted] does have the option to seek repairs through his insurance carrier Geico. We encourage [redacted] to contact claim adjuster, [redacted], with his insurance company [redacted], at ###-###-####.  We hope we have answered the consumer’s questions or concerns that were brought forward with this concern and if there is any additional information needed or clarification on any concerns, please let me know.[redacted]Nationwide Property & Casualty###-###-####[redacted]

I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards, [redacted]

I feel this is not ethical business practice and they are taking advantage of the customer with this prior Ins. clause . It seems a company would be eager to insure a customer that hadn't cost them a penny and always payed in full and on time. I've taken this to my local TV station
Regards, [redacted]

I'm still apalled at how nationwide was not fully involved with further action I had to on my own reach out to different people and call  the claims center to get a hold of the proper management. They did not work along with me at all only until now in which there is new issues that are  going on with my vehicle and is now at a new body shop. I'm just not happy what so ever on how this was handled and to top it all my premium is going to go up in November. I feel the girl who was assigned to the claim was nasty and did not wanna hear me out this needs to be looked into more deeply thank you 
Regards,[redacted]

I am in receipt of your correspondence of May 4, 2015 regarding the above captioned loss andwould like to take this opportunity to respond.This claim was reported to us on March 2, 2015 and handled in our Harleysville, ** CatastropheUnit. Immediate contact was made with our insured and we assigned...

an adjuster to view theclaimed damages. This inspection was completed by [redacted]with [redacted]. on March 10, 2015 as that was when the insured would be available.The insured also contracted with [redacted] to perform water mitigation of the property. [redacted]was not hired nor were they contacted by Harleysville Preferred Insurance to complete anymitigation at the premises. Once we were notified that they had inspected the property we didcontact them for the scope of their repairs. We discussed their mitigation process with [redacted]from [redacted] on March 6, 2015.Our investigation found water damage consistent with ice dams to the interior of the home.However, a complete inspection of the roof found numerous areas of preexisting damages andrepairs as well as evidence that the roof at one time had been tarped. No evidence was found ofice dam damage to the roof. The roof had damage in numerous places which was not indicativeof damage caused by ice as the damage was not where the ice had formed but wide-spread on theroof. We have included photos that document these findings.We received the estimate on March 17, 2015 and discussed the estimate with the insured onMarch 19, 2015. This estimate was emailed to [redacted] and payment was issued on March 26,2015. Also on March 26, 2015, [redacted] called and was concerned that the roof was not beingincluded in the estimate. We agreed to send assign a second inspection.This re-inspection was completed by [redacted], with [redacted]. onApril 14, 2015 At that time the roof was re-tarped. [redacted] was unable to see any damage tothe roof due to the tarp. [redacted] was informed that if he had the tarp removed, [redacted]would come out again to see the claimed damages or that Harleysville would assign a roofingexpert.[redacted] did prepare a supplemental estimate to include some additional damages includingice removal from the roof, a new shed and the subsequent tarping of the roof, as a customerservice to assist [redacted] in preventing further damage. Paying for the tarp was not anadmission of coverage for the claimed roof replacement.Payment for the supplemental damage was issued on May 1, 2015. [redacted] was informed by[redacted] that when the roof was again exposed we wouldsend out a roofing contractor for another inspection. At this time we have not heard anythingfurther from [redacted].Should you require any further assistance in this matter, please contact our Customer RelationsCoordinator, [redacted], at ###-###-#### or via email at [redacted]Regards,[redacted]###-###-###

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 letter is in response to your request for information pertaining to the above file.
 
As stated in my previous response the policy coverage dates were from April 4, 2015 to April 28, 2015.  The policy was cancelled per the request of Ms. [redacted].  The Auto policy is not a month to month coverage.  We allow the member to make a monthly payment but that doesn’t mean the coverage is month to month.
 
The total charged for coverage from April 4, 2015 to April 28, 2015 was $80.30.  A payment of $63.80 was received on April 1, 2015.  There were two $8.00 service fees charged.  The total charged of $80.30 plus $16.00 charged in service fees minus $63.80 total payment equals $32.50 charged for coverage provided up to the cancellation date of April 28, 2015.
 
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to assist you and if you have any questions  regarding the information I have provided you may contact me at ###-###-####, Ext. [redacted] or my email address is [redacted].
 
Sincerely, 
 
Erica D[redacted]
[redacted] 
Nationwide

Dear [redacted]Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a complaint which you received from [redacted] As Claims Manager, I have reviewed our claim file and would like to address [redacted] If I do not provide the information you need for this matter, please do not hesitate to let me...

know. The concern regarding our settlement offer for the total loss of [redacted]’s vehicle,   [redacted]’s vehicle, a 2013 Toyota Sienna, was identified as a total loss due to an accident on January 10, 2015. The following factors were considered in the total loss decision. The known repair costs of $4017.05 based on an estimate prepared by [redacted]. The vehicles actual cash value of $4499.00 and the salvage value of $1622.63.   Our initial settlement offer was extended on January 28, 2015. We extended a revised offer on to [redacted] on February 2, 2015, for $4893.68. The current settlement is for the full actual cash value of the vehicle including payment for all applicable fees.  Following is the settlement outline for that offer. Actual cash value:  $4,499.00 Applicable tax:         $314.93  Fee:                                   $79.75Net Settlement:         $32740.69 The actual cash value was based on a current local market survey, and took into consideration the vehicle’s mileage, options and overall condition at the time of the loss. We have reviewed facts of our current settlement and feel that the correct decision was made with respect to the total loss decision.  We feel our current settlement offer for the actual cash value to be fair and reasonable Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.  If you should need additional information related to this matter please contact me.Sincerely,       [redacted]###-###-####

This does not seem logical. So basically this conpany could say they changed their mind and my house was worth a billion dollars, and expect me to pay for the previous 2 month that was quoted to me at a different rate. You simply can't do that to people. I've asked [redacted] about this and they said they would NEVER do that to their customers. You had the house inspected and gave me a quote. If you changed your mind afterwords, that is your own fault and should't come at my expense.
Regards, [redacted]

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a complaint you received from [redacted].  I have reviewed this claim file and would like to address  Ms. [redacted]’s concerns.  If I do not provide the information you need for this matter, please do not hesitate to let me...

know.  Our insured, EJP Enterprises Inc, has a commercial auto policy. The name of the location for the business is  [redacted] on this policy.   A claim was filed with Nationwide Insurance on October 4, 2016 for an engine fire loss due to work done by [redacted] on a 2002 Ford Taurus owned by Mark [redacted]. A fire expert was hired and the fire was confirmed to have originated in the area of the valve cover on the engine, recently replaced by [redacted], verifying liability owed at 100% for this loss.   November 10 Lori G[redacted], Total loss representative, was assigned to handle the settlement with Mr. [redacted]. It was found that the assignment from the local representative was routed incorrectly, which delayed contact for 7 days.   Ms. G[redacted] called Mr. [redacted] and left him a voice mail to return her call. She also sent him an email. She called Mr. [redacted] again on November 11, and left him another voice mail. Mr. [redacted] responded to Ms. G[redacted] by email that he wanted $5,000 for the loss on his vehicle.   November 14, Ms. G[redacted] received an email from Mr. [redacted] and was requesting a pain and suffering settlement. She replied that she would send a request to a representative in Casualty that would handle that, to get in contact with him to discuss this, as she was to handle on the total loss settlement for him on the claim.   November 17 Joseph G[redacted], casualty claims manager, reviewed the pain and suffering request and noted there was no mention that the claimants had sought treatment as a result of the smoke in the          vehicle. Michael B[redacted], casualty claims representative called Mr. [redacted] and left him a voice mail requesting a call back regarding the injury allegation.   December 15 Ms. G[redacted] received and reviewed the engine receipt for consideration in adding to the value. This added $872.00 and loss of use was also considered for 45 days @ 25.00 per day totaling $1125.00. Ms. G[redacted] called Mr. [redacted] and left him a voice message with the revisions to the settlement and also sent him an email.   Actual Cash Value = $1,812.00  Additional Consideration + $888.00  Prior Damage Assessed = $457.21 Prior Damage Applied - $125.00 Subtotal ACV = $2,575.00  Sales Tax 6.0000% + $154.50  Tag/Title Fee + $110.00  Subtotal ACV = $2,839.50  Concession + $1,125.00  Net Settlement = $3,964.50   UPD- left quarter panel damage   applied $125.00 as fair and reasonable.  Upon acceptance of the settlement, Ms. G[redacted] will issue payment for the total loss of the 2002 Ford Taurus to Mr. [redacted] upon receipt of the signed title from him.   If you require further assistance, please contact our Customer Relations Coordinator, Yvette S[redacted], at ###-###-#### or by email at [email protected].

This letter is in response to the rejected offer made by Nationwide Insurance regarding the complaint dated May 12, 2016.With the insured’s policy a total credit in the amount of $1,335.75 was placed on the policy for prior taxes that were collected on the insurance policy. However, as the policy...

did have a balance for the current insurance term, this credit paid for the remaining balance due on the current term and a refund was issued for the remaining $566.58 of credit.As the insured has since cancelled the insurance policy effective June 1, 2016 a second refund was issued in the amount of $804.72 for unearned premium and was mailed on June 7, 2016. A billing breakdown has been included detailing how the credit was applied to the account.If you require further assistance, please contact our [redacted], Sharon W[redacted], at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted] .Sincerely,Stephen Y[redacted]

This will acknowledge receipt of, and thank you for your letter of December 2, 2015. [redacted]’s complaint to you was in regards to her homeowner claim that was partially denied. In reviewing Ms. [redacted]’s claim, her claim involved reported damages to her property resulting from flood, wind, and...

interior water damages from a storm which occurred on October 3, 2015.In regards to this homeowners claim, a loss notice was received by Nationwide on October 9, 2015. An initial contact was made with Ms. [redacted] on October 9, 2015, and again on October 13, 2015, by the assigned claims associate. The investigation and inspection of the claim commenced on October 15, 2015. At that time we reviewed with the insured that there was no coverage for any of the flood damages and mailed her a partial denial letter on October 16, 2015. Our inspection also determined ensuing water damages to a bathroom due to wind driven rains around a deteriorated roof vent. An estimate and payment for the covered damages (ensuing water damages) were provided to Ms. [redacted].On November 19, 2015, we received a request to re-inspect the property for an additional roof leak. The re-inspection took place on November 20, 2015, with Ms. [redacted]’s son, [redacted] present. The inspection determined water had entered the attic around the deteriorated chimney flashing which caused water and mold damages to a small area on the underside of the roof sheathing. An estimate and payment for the additional damages were provided as well as a partial denial for the chimney flashing.Both inspections revealed there was no wind damage to the roof shingles from the storm of October 3, 2015, but there was damage due to deteriorated conditions of a roof vent and chimney flashing, which is not covered under the Nationwide homeowner policy.We hope this provides you the information that you require. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at ###-###-#### or [redacted]Sincerely,Debbie D[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because as this has been ongoing since September when the new policy was actually cancelled since the agent didn't set up the policy correctly. Per the attachment just like all the other reps the blame was placed on me regarding the uninsured motorist policy being placed...

back on the account. As you can see the  majority of the information in this final response to Revdex.com was never provided prior to the involvement of Revdex.com. From the attachment the analyst states that I never signed them yet in the response to Revdex.com she states that they were signed but due to their error it was placed back onto the loan. I kept asking for the signed copy which would show the date and nobody was able to provide this. The reason is was "caught" in February, is because I have been calling since January trying to get an answer on why my account has never been billed for the correct amount. It was my 6th call in February that prompted them to send the file for reconcilement which caught these errors. Please have the analyst go back through all of the calls including the one in September when the policy was cancelled on accident by nationwide. Also both policies were paid on the exact same day with the same exact card so how did one policy star in August and one in September? In addition, why would I know as customer by calling in on that date that my policy would then be billed for 4 months instead of 6? That was never disclosed not even during the 2 months I called prior to being finally sent to escalations in March due to me threatening to file a claim with Revdex.com. Again I signed documents to be billed one amount and that amount has not been drafted since the policy started. My drafting has never changed per the attachment received from the analyst, which I included so why would I think by simply switching the states that it would now create this issue, whose job was it to provide that information ? Is it not their obligation to give full disclosure asking how it would be billed since I was also accused of changing my drafting date and that was never changed as I was told that the date would be same and my policy would bill as advised. I attached the confirmation page from the payment for both policies as well as the confirmation of receiving my signed documents on 9/8/16. I feel that I shouldn’t penalized for them telling my policy would remain the same and it didn’t. So am I still required to change to what date for proper billing and how will I know this will be actual amount?

January 11, 2016[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]...

[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Dear [redacted]:On October 20, 2015 a claim was reported to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide)concerning an automobile accident occurring on this date.Named Insured, [redacted], was operating a 2008 [redacted] [redacted], a listed vehicle under NationwidePolicy Number [redacted] [redacted]. The claimant, [redacted], owns a 2015 [redacted]. On October20, 2015, [redacted] was traveling westbound on [redacted] Road attempting a left turn onto [redacted] when he pulled into the path of [redacted], who was traveling eastbound on [redacted] Road. Thisaction caused the right front corner of [redacted]’ vehicle to strike the right rear side of [redacted] vehicle.Nationwide paid [redacted]’ damage estimate of $5,648.15 ($3,447.26 of this were for parts) plus $444.17in rental costs.On/around October 22, 2015, prior to repairs being completed, Nationwide received notice that [redacted]
[redacted] was also making a Diminished Value Claim. The Diminished Value Claim was assigned toadjuster [redacted]. [redacted] arranged for a post-repair vehicle re-inspection, which wascompleted on/around December 3, 2015. [redacted] provided a copy of the vehicle title/registration aswell as diminished value appraisal report obtained through [redacted] ([redacted]).The appraisal report through [redacted] indicates that no actual inspection was performed; rather, theyreviewed the materials provided by [redacted]. [redacted] opined that the pre-loss fair market value for thesubject vehicle was $47,683. [redacted] further stated they "do not assess the quality and thoroughness ofthe repairs....only diminishment relating to stigma has been assigned a dollar value in this report". Thereport also lists several factors which potential buyers may consider important if they know the vehiclehas been involved in an accident. These again relate to the 'stigma' referenced and speak in generalitiesand hypothetical situations only; there is nothing specific to this particular claim and/or vehicle. It'simportant to note that 'stigma' and generalities are speculative and do not prove a diminution in valueclaim without evidence of a reduction in the vehicle's actual cash value before the accident and afterrepairs. The [redacted] report also references vehicles with a similar year/make/model; however, all havediffering mileage than that of the subject vehicle. [redacted] goes on to claim that the post-accident fairmarket value is $38,146 and further alleges that due the accident, the vehicle's value has diminished by20% or $9,537. There has been no documentation provided that would support these figures and/oropinion.Furthermore, [redacted] has alleged that this accident has caused his vehicle to sustain accelerateddepreciation, and has further alleged that a reasonable person will not pay the same price for awrecked/repaired vehicle as they would for one with no prior damage history. [redacted] has not providedany documentation to support his statements and/or opinions. It should also be noted that during thepost-repair inspection, it was discovered that the [redacted]' vehicle sustained additional {unrelated}damage due to a subsequent accident/incident.The measure of damages for diminution in value in Ohio is the difference in actual cash value (not tradein or resale value) before an accident and after repairs. The information [redacted] has provided is notbased on a difference in actual cash value. Furthermore, in Ohio, a claimant recovering both the cost ofrepairs and the residual diminution in value is not entitled to recover damages in excess of the vehicle'sgross diminution in value. In addition, [redacted] has suggested that the accident will negatively impactthe vehicle's trade-in and/or resale value; however, as noted above, diminished value is not based ontrade-in or resale value.Taking into consideration the aforementioned information, the damages sustained, repairs made, as wellas the vehicle's age, mileage and overall condition, we have extended a good faith offer of $1,200 toresolve [redacted]’ diminished value claim; [redacted] has rejected this offer at this time.Nationwide would be pleased to consider any new information [redacted] would like to provide to supporthis claim. If you have any additional questions please contact Angela S[redacted], Customer RelationsCoordinator, Office of the Customer Advocacy at ###-###-#### or [redacted]Respectfully,Wendy K[redacted]Claims ManagerNationwide PCIO | MidWest Operations | Material Damage[redacted]
[redacted]C ###-###-#### | F ###-###-####[redacted]Office of Customer Advocacy | [redacted] [redacted]

We have been in contact with our insured.  We have offered to hire an engineer to inspection his roof for hail damage.  Mr. [redacted] has agreed.  Once the inspection has been conducted and the report received, we will follow up with Mr. Wolfe regarding the engineer’s findings.Thank...

you for allowing us to respond to our member.Sincerely,John S[redacted]Nationwide Property Claims Manager

[redacted]
 
[redacted]
 
[redacted] 
Thank you for the opportunity to respond...

to the Revdex.com regarding policy
number ##### for [redacted] and to address her concerns about the policy.
On 10/16/2011, [redacted] purchased a six month insurance policy with a bill plan of
20% down and 5 installments.
?
On 11/30/2011 installment bill 2 was issued to [redacted] with an amount due of
$212.72 with a stated due date of 12/15/2011. On 12/15/2011 we had not received
payment and a cancel pending notice was sent to [redacted] with a stated cancellation
date of 1/8/2012. On 1/8/2012 we still had not received payment and [redacted]s policy
canceled per the 12/15/2011 notice. At the time of cancel on 1/8/2012, a balance of
$51.88 remained due in premium and fees.
?
On 7/30/2012 a payment was received via USPS for $5.00, leaving a balance due of
$46.88. On 6/12/2013 payment was received via USPS for $36.00, leaving a balance due of $10.88. We have not received any other payments since 6/12/2013.
On 10/24/2014 a complaint was received from [redacted] advising that she should not
have any amount due and she was upset that $10.88 was in a collections status. As a
courtesy the remaining $10.88 was removed from [redacted]’s account and said account currently shows $0.00 due. [redacted] questioned other payments that she issued to our company and she was advised of all payments that were received and applied to her account. If [redacted] states that check payments were submitted to our company and have cleared, we would require a copy of the front and back of each check used for payment to confirm they were issued and were deposited and cashed by our representative. Any expense that [redacted] would accrue to obtain this information
would be her responsibility.
?
I trust that I have addressed the issues within [redacted]’s complaint. If I can be of
further assistance, please contact me at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
[redacted]