Once again, I never said that I cancelled my previous policy to take Allieds policy. What I did say is that I had a homeowners insurance policy in tact when I purchased my home and I would have gone back to the same company to get insurance again (I wanted to have coverage for my air conditioning units) except that when I told [redacted] (my insurance agent) that I was looking into getting another home owners policy, [redacted] told me that they had a new policy to offer me that WOULD cover my air conditioning units. [redacted] also told me that the policy was so new that there wasn't a brochure or information to give to me and said that I would get information soon and took the policy out for me, himself and another person in his office as they wanted this great coverage too. Once again, Allied is trying to divert attention from the issue, which is their agent told me it was covered. This has nothing to do with my other homeowners policy, this has to do with what Allied told me was covered. Additionally, I provided the brochure to show that air conditioning units are covered (at their request.) This tactic of diverting attention from the real issue, which is misrepresentation of a product, is really unprofessional and shady. I have already provided written documentation about [redacted] telling me that he misrepresented the policy when he sold it to me. Honor what your agents are selling to customers Allied.
Regards,
[redacted]
They raised my premiums without notifying me there representatives are very rude when I called with questions. I use to pay 153.20 they raised to 214 without an explanation. When I called to cancell the premium with Theresa at their office location in Houston she did not let me that I will have a balance. Nation wide has unconvinced me a lot because of their terrible & unprofessional reps. I should not owe anything.
Regards,
[redacted]
I disagree if some, if not all of the statements made by [redacted]s message sent on 12/29/2014. And I think your response re-iterates the problem that I have with this claim and the reason I came to the Revdex.com in the first place. You stated that "CCC Valuescope was able to locate similar comparable vehicles which they used in researching the value of the 2002 Chevrolet van". My complaint is that not only did Valus scope go half way accross the country 800 miles away to find a compairable vehicle( which is way out side of industry standards), but the vehicles they found were not compairable, because CCC Valuescope is not adequately setup to value these vans. Like you said before, these vans are "Outliers" by design, CCC Valuescope, Edmunds, KBB, NADA. That is why Edmunds, KBB, NADA all have seperate ways to value RVs, which would be a more accurate to value Conversion Vans. Again I state that this van has a RV title. Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?[redacted] This is an example of 2 conversion vans, which valuescope would say has the exact same options, but the MSRP price is roughly $20,000 dollars different. What is different, is that the first van has a good but generic conversion package , and the second has a higher grade conversion packages. If you look at the website, the southern comfort conversion packages are all 15k to 20k more than the generic. I can provide more websites and provide more than 100 of these examples if needed. I say all this to say, all conversion packages are not the same, and that is why I must insist that you compare my van to other Regency Coronado LX vans. That is the only way to get a accurate valuation. I was able to provide several links to compairable Regency Coronado LX vans. This is not hard to do and there is no reason not to. Yes, these vans are more expensive, and "Outliers". But that is by design and these vans are all outliers when they are sold. Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?If you go to Edmunds, KBB or NADA and select every possible option on a 2014 chevy exspree van and you get $39,220. that is $10,000 to $30,000 dollars cheaper than the MSRP of one of these conversion vans new. This is why I am complaining. This is exactly what valuescope is doing, and it works well for %90 percent of the vehicles on the road, but not for conversion vans, and it clearly is not fair.Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?When I asked a local Chevy dealer to appraise my van they said they would not and could not give an accurate appraisal because there is no adequate way to do so.Now to directly address some of the statements made in your previous response.Statement 1:"CCC Valuescope was able to locate similar comparable vehicles which they used in researching the value of the 2002 Chevrolet van with the conversion package."--The vans used as compairisons were not Regency Coronado LX conversion, and not an addequate accurate compairson, not to mention over 800 miles away, way out side of the "Local Market".Statement 2:"The value did take into account all of the options that this vehicle had including body side moldings and the rear step bumper. The value add of these options is minimal due to the age of the vehicle but are considered within the overall value."--Every other option listed on the evalualtion had a dollar amount assigned to it, but not these 2. When I asked your claims adjuster about these options he said that thier were some options on the van that the system was not setup to handle. If these options were considered, I would exspect that a dollar amount would of been assigned to it and listed on the report no matter how small. And seeing how the cost to replace these options are thousands of dollars, I can't believe that they would not bother to put some dollar amount with it if they could. I will attached the vehicle evalueation to the complaint. If there was a small value amount added to the evaluation for these options I would love to see the email, or report from valuescope stateing exactly the small amount attached to this complaint. I think this again strenghts my complaint,the fact that valuescope thinks that something that cost $2,500 when new has no value when it is used. Valuescope is not adequately equipped to to evalueate conversion vans.Statement 3:"CCC Valuescope also conducted additional research by obtaining two dealer quotes." --I would like the response from these "Dealers" from NC attached to this complaint. Which dealers were contacted? Do they specialize in conversion vans? I don't know of a single reputable dealer who will give and evaluation appraisale over the phone with out looking at the vehicle. Were they informed that this was a Regency Coronado LX conversion van. I don't see how it is possible that the value they reported was exactly the same as what a standard van with out a conversion with similar options and milage is valued on Edmunds, KBB, NADA. That means either the conversion package to them is worth nothing or that Edmunds, KBB, NADA are all wrong. Statement 4:"To date I don’t see where a rental vehicle has been requested"On "11/25/2014 01:30 PM" I emailed Mr. League the following statement."I had also hoped that we would be able to resolve this before the Thanksgiving holidays, but since that does not seem possible, could I request a rental van until we can come to a consensus."Yes, I would like a rental Van as soon as possible. I rented a van on my own previously, can I be reinbursed for that as well. Also We were a 2 car family now we are down to 1 car which is leased, can I be reinbursed for the extra miles I have put on the leased car at the gong rate, since I was not provided a rental?To date I have not recieve an acceptable reponse to any of the questions I have asked. I would ask that you please address these descepancies with details and facts.1: Have you comapired my vehicle to other Regency Coronado LX vans? If not why not? If so please provide details.2. How much value was added for the side moldings and the rear step bumper? Please provide details of the amount, which you said was small, with proof from Valuescope that it was considered.3. Which other Dealers were contacted about the evaluation of my van, and what details were they provided? Do the specialize or even sell used Conversion Vans? Please provide all details you can. If you can't provide details, this should not be considered.4. How do I get a rental van? And can I be reimbursed for previous expenses incurred from not having a rental van provided, when I asked?
Regards,
[redacted]
I would like more information to why the vehicles I provided links to were not considered the same as the vehicles I own. I think the vehicles I provided links to were more in line with my vehicle because unlike the vehicles value scope provided info for, mine was by the same conversion company which makes a big differences. I provided link to Regency Conversion which is what my vehicle is and not what you compared it to. I provided info for a 2002 Regency Coronado LX which is exactly what I have. Why was that comparison not acceptable. And my vehicle was in very good condition before the accident. It had no dents, no rust and only minor wear to the seats which was in line for it age. It is not fair you judge it in poor condition after it has been wrecked. The conversion package I had applied to the van ," Coronado Regency Lx" is a much better quality and more expensive conversion package than any Value Scope used to compare my vehicle. Even in the comparison there were many options that Value Scope could not even price and left blank on their comparison. And many options they don't even list, because it is not common on a express van and come only with true conversions. For instance "value scope" list my van with body side moldings, I have documented proof that that is $2000.00 and the rear step bumper is $500.00. it is listed on the value scope appraisal, but their was no monetary value added to my vehicle for these options. Are you going to increase the value of my van by $2500.00 for these omissions ? Probably not since you chose not to believe every thing I have stated about the value of my van. I have over and over again put forth a detailed explanation with proof of why the valuescope evaluation is wrong and why I believe my van is worth more, and in return your only response has been no, with no explanations why the info I have provided you is wrong. You mentioned the info I provided you was of VANS that were outliers, The vehicles Valuescope provided were over 800 miles away, how much more of an outlier can you get? I will ask again that you compare my van to a "Regency Coronado LX" Which is exactly what I have. If you can't find any, please use the links I sent you. It is useless to uses the NADA, KBB, or Edmunds Values for conversion vans, because it is not the same. This Van and other "Coronado Regency Lx" has a RV title because it is very different and more expensive than normal vans. And what happened to my request for a rental car?
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com regarding claim number ##### for [redacted] and to address his concerns about the claim.
Victoria Fire & Casualty DBA Titan has addressed the complaint through the State of [redacted] Department of Insurance and has appropriately addressed all concerns on [redacted] diminution claims for damages to his 1999 Volkswagen.
Sincerely yours,
[redacted]
Phone: ###-###-#### October 16, 2014Claim number: [redacted] Claim detailsInsurer: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Claimant: [redacted]Claim number: [redacted]Loss date: August 20, 2014Loss location: [redacted] Dear [redacted], The damage to your 1999 Volkswagon Jetta GLS is all bolt on/bolt off parts. There was not any structural damage and you opted for an appearance allowance of $100.00 on the small dent on the exhaust shield. The estimate also notes the vehicle has scuffs, stains on the hood and a few small dings, which would not place the vehicle in a pre-loss condition of "excellent retail". As previously stated, this vehicle has been repaired to its pre-accident safe, mechanical and cosmetic condition by the shop of your choice. At this time, the offer of $200 for diminished value stands. Please find the enclosed payment in the amount of $200 as it is the undisputed amount. An alternative is for us to hire an independent appraiser, at our expense, and you to hire an independent appraiser, at your expense, and have the information reviewed by an arbitrator. The arbitrators decision would be final. For more information If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at ###-###-#### or [redacted]. Sincerely,[redacted]
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a complaint you received from our insured [redacted]. We strive to provide quality service while conforming to the expectations of our customer and all regulations.
Ms. [redacted] had a water loss on March 22, 2015. ...
The water escaped from a pipe in a chase wall on an exterior bathroom. The water leaked down from the upstairs chase wall down into the living and dining area below requiring repair to the walls, ceiling and floor. A containment area was created to limit dust and disturbance to the other areas of the home during the drying and remediation process. On 4/30/15 Ms. [redacted] called our Customer Advocacy Center and stated she was unhappy that she was not placed in a hotel during her repair process and also that she was unhappy with the restoration company because they had not placed all her belongings back in the proper locations in the home. I notified the restoration company who responded and moved the contents into the areas she requested and we also discussed the considerations for additional living accommodations. I explained that while she does have coverage for ALE it was not initiated because the damages were limited to areas of the home that could be contained to prevent as much disturbance as possible. I spoke with her and explained that ALE (Additional Living Expenses) is cost incurred. In her situation as explained, she did not need nor was required to stay in a hotel and the cost was not incurred. No payment can be made since no cost was incurred.
I also apologized for any inconvenience that the loss and repairs caused her and for the issues with the general contractor who needed to return to properly move articles to her desired areas of the home.
Ms. [redacted] commented of a fall that was documented in her complaint to have occurred on May 5th. The fall was never reported to Nationwide but rather to the contractor, [redacted], following the completion of the restoration. The work was completed and a final walkthrough was held on 4/21/15. After the completion of the work Ms. [redacted] contacted the contractor and said she had tripped on the new carpet. It was determined that there was no installation issues with the new carpet but possibly tripped because the carpet was new.
I will include a copy of the estimate and photos in this response. If there are any additional questions or concerns please feel free to call my office at ###-###-####.
I am satisfied with Nationwide's resolution of the dispute. I said in my previous response that I was satisfied with the offer from Nationwide's claims adjustor but that the Nationwide response on the Revdex.com complaint site was not quite the same as what the adjustor had offered. Since then, the adjustor has moved forward with the resolution he offered, and I am satisfied. [redacted]
I received a Authorization of release of information from your office. I filled out said complaint and signed said document and mailed it to your offices which I believe it must have got misplaced or not delivered because of the holiday season. When I applied for said insurance. I was and my wife were very firm that she was not to be put on said insurance policy. I am the sole owner of said vehicles and she doesn’t have a valid license to drive and I do. I returned the forms that were mailed to me on several occasions from the insurance company and mailed the back signed and dated. I also called the said company on several occasions and was told the insurance would be cancelled because of my wife not being a valid never. The insurance was supposed to be solely on me and no-one else and this was stated on several occasions. I feel I was mislead in the matter and it is very unethical to treat anyone this way. This letter also gives you permission to authorization to contact anyone you wish about this matter and also for them to release information to you.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards and Thank you so much for your help! [redacted]
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. They have resolved my complaint at this time.
I am writing in response to the above referenced file number. The member’s premiums are deducted from his paycheck and remitted by his employer. The member was also sending in checks for partial payments. Our records indicate that we spoke with this member on May 2, 2016 and advised him...
that we would work with his employer and conduct a complete review of his premium payments. An initial overpayment was identified and a refund in the amount of $29.36 was issued on April 21, 2016. A subsequent refund was issued in the amount of $92.52 on May 20, 2016. The member has been refunded the full amount identified in his correspondence. Our records show that both refund checks have been cashed by the member. If I can be of any further assistance in resolving this matter you may contact me directly at ###-###-####. Sincerely, Tom L[redacted]
[redacted] This communication is in response to the Revdex.com of Central Ohio’s inquiry in which you introduce the concerns of complainant [redacted] Nationwide has reviewed this file and the concerns expressed by [redacted]. In this response we will address: the length of time it took for the repair, the current mechanical condition of the Cadillac, paying [redacted] prior to the repair process, the extension and payment activity of rental coverage beyond the maximum policy provisions, and the value of the vehicle. The repair process did take longer than expected. The repair delays were caused by multiple factors. Nationwide allowed this customer 20 days additional rental car expenses over his purchased coverage. We also recognize that some delays were out of the control of Nationwide Insurance and the repair facility. The date of the accident was December 31, 2013 which is during the holiday season. Weather in Central [redacted] during this time was unusually harsh and there were a few unusually strong winter storms that occurred in January that slowed body shop productivity and parts supply activity. One of the lengthiest delays that impacted the delivery of the vehicle back to [redacted] involved his refusal to pick up the vehicle because of a back order on a part. The vehicle was ready for pickup on or about February 21, 2014. The only thing left to complete the repair was an after market trim molding that attaches to the fender. The part does not affect the drivability, functionality or safety of the vehicle. It is strictly a cosmetic trim molding. The replacement part was not available anymore so a new set of four had to be special ordered. We offered the vehicle back to [redacted] at that time so he could get out of the rental and even test drive the vehicle as all the accident related repairs had been completed. [redacted] refused to receive the vehicle back until that cosmetic part was received and installed. Nationwide is not aware of any repair issues or any new discovery of accident related damage. I responded to the [redacted] dealership to address a number of concerns of [redacted] brought the Cadillac to the Dealership to have a second opinion on the repairs completed and because he felt that the transmission must have been damaged from the accident. I discussed this with the service manager and technician after the Cadillac was put through extensive diagnostic testing. It was determined that there was nothing wrong with the transmission or any of the repairs completed. In fact, all of the vibrations felt in the vehicle including the front suspension were with in manufacturer’s specifications. As a result of the diagnostic testing there were a few general maintenance items that needed attention but nothing related to the accident. The items discovered to be defective were, a hub was worn out, or slight chance it sustained some damage form the accident and the brakes and rotors should be replaced. Nationwide conceded to pay for the hub as it could have been damaged by the accident but the brakes and rotors are maintenance items on the vehicle and have worn out over time. Nationwide did not offer to pay for the brakes and rotors. [redacted] was certain his vehicle must be a total loss because of the damage the vehicle sustained. As a licensed [redacted] Vehicle Damage Appraiser I conducted a complete damage assessment with [redacted]. It was determined that the vehicle was repairable based on the estimate and the supplemental damage that was discovered. The vehicle was brought in to the shop, put up on a lift and the undercarriage, suspension and drive-train were all inspected. There was no indication that the damage sustained would drive the value of the repair close to the actual cash value of the vehicle. [redacted] signed a repair authorization / election form at the repair shop and could have at any time told the shop he was not going to repair his vehicle there. This did not happen, so the repair shop moved forward with the repairs. All delays were addressed and Nationwide has paid a fair amount for the rental. [redacted] has Loss of Use (rental) coverage limits of $40 per day with a maximum coverage of 1100. Nationwide has paid for all rental provisions under the contract and also assisted our customer with additional rental car coverage over the purchased limits to compensate [redacted] for delays caused by the holiday’s, weather, and repair productivity . [redacted] chose to purchase additional insurance coverage on the rental vehicle. This contributed to additional expenses related to his rental contract. The value of the vehicle was determined by running the CCC evaluation. The evaluation method is approved by the [redacted] Department of Financial Services. The value stated on the evaluation is $18,566.14. The complete damage estimate is $11099.00. The damage ratio to value is 59.73% to value. In the state of [redacted], Regulation 64 indicates a vehicle should be considered a total loss when the estimate exceeds 75%. Nationwide will continue to address the concerns of [redacted]. All of the concerns addressed above have been discussed with [redacted] by myself and our Associate Director, [redacted] on more than one occasion. Our position has always been that if there are additional damages that are attributable to the December 31, 2013 accident we will address them. There has been very recent communication with [redacted] and he has not brought any new damage concerns to our attention. In response to second complaint I will address items in sequence 18.[redacted]’s vehicle did sit idle outside shop due to weather conditions and shop needed to find room to bring his vehicle in. The shop in good faith allowed [redacted] $280 or 7 days towards his rental car expense ( this was done by reducing his deductible expense of $500 – the shop collected $220 ) . There was an initial estimate prepared by our Nationwide Field Associate [redacted] for $7455.93. At that point [redacted] decided to use our direct repair shop [redacted] and signed the repair authorization 1-9-2014. I spoke to [redacted] and discussed we could put vehicle on lift to further assess the damages. [redacted] agreed to this and we both agreed to get suspension work done so we could move vehicle and check for mobility concerns. After this was completed, the shop and I explained to [redacted] there was no further transmission or structural damage concerns and his vehicle was repairable vs total loss. Final repair bill at [redacted] is attached in prior complaint transmission. I also attached a copy of the Market evaluation in that transmission along with repair authorization form. [redacted] believed his vehicle was a total loss which seems to be the customer concern moving along ( this does not support his reference to [redacted] Reg [redacted] as customer signed repair authorization at shop and vehicle was not totaled ). I explained that we per state guidelines have to do a market evaluation based on comparable vehicles on average – we use CCC1 estimating systems to do this and this was the more accurate way to assess vehicle worth vs NADA , Kelly books. His figure of $14000.00 I do not understand because we need to settle vehicles when they are totaled per real numbers – our vehicle worth evaluation $18566.14 ( If this vehicle was a total loss Nationwide would have to settle it per our supported settlement numbers not speculation ). [redacted] at any time could have elected not to repair his vehicle by telling the repair shop where he signed a repair authorization to stop repairs. He did not. Nationwide has acted in accordance with [redacted] State guidelines on fair claim settlement in this case. [redacted] believed we should allow replacement of left front tire and shock absorber even though they were not damaged in the loss. He stated they should be replaced in matched pairs. I stated that makes sense, but his policy only allows for only physical damaged items from loss and he would be responsible paying for those left side parts if he chooses to do so. Per [redacted], Nationwide Representatives [redacted] and my discussion, we agreed to take vehicle to second assessment location [redacted]. Their assessment found one concern a noise in the left front hub. Although it was questionable as loss related, Nationwide agreed to pay for this and did. [redacted]s assessment stated that all repairs were done properly and that there were some maintenance concerns with vehicle ( brakes were worn ). After this assessment, [redacted] agreed to take his vehicle back to [redacted] for some cosmetic concerns and these concerns where taken care of. [redacted]’s vehicle to date has been repaired properly and all know loss related items have been repaired per [redacted]’s final bill, several road tests and [redacted]s assessment. Reimbursement request for Vehicle loan and insurance payments are not covered expenses in this customer’s policy. They are preexisting obligations this customer had prior to loss.The Shop and Nationwide have paid for rental car expenses well above the policy provisions to assist this customer. We did not offer any more rental car assistance on this claim due to some of the delays were attributable to the customer. If you require further assistance, please contact Customer Relations Coordinator, [redacted] at ###-###-####, or by email at [redacted] between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:15 PM. Sincerely,
[redacted]Nationwide ###-###-####[redacted]
Kindly allow this letter to represent the [redacted] Insurance Company (“[redacted]”) response to a complaint dated August 26, 2015 on behalf of [redacted]. We understand you have identified that complaint as Complaint Number 10783102, as captioned above.[redacted] wishes to first inform you...
that it has no knowledge of [redacted] or how precisely Ms. [redacted] may have interest in the loss notice that [redacted] received relative to the incident that took place on the insured premises on October 11, 2014.[redacted] had sold a general liability policy to [redacted] that was in force on October 11, 2014. The policy provides liability insurance coverage for accidents on and about the premises. Mr. [redacted] is in the residential property business doing business in the Eugene, Oregon, area, as “Synthesis”. While Mr. [redacted], as land owner, owes certain legal duties to tenants and their guests, the circumstances surrounding this incident, as explained below, do not suggest that Mr. [redacted] would have liability exposure to either his tenant, [redacted] II (“[redacted]”), or [redacted]’s guest, [redacted] (“[redacted]”). Without such liability, [redacted] would not owe moneys under its liability policy sold to Mr. [redacted].[redacted] received a loss notice relative to the incident and its investigation revealed that [redacted], a tenant at the insured location for over two years, was hosting his girlfriend, [redacted], on the date of the incident. [redacted] and [redacted] had elected to step outside onto the porch having both consumed around 5 to 6 beers that were then chased by around 4 shots of cinnamon whiskey by the both of them, all prior to the incident. During the [redacted] investigation, [redacted] informed the investigator that, while on the outdoor porch, he had fallen off the porch after he and [redacted] had consumed the beer and whiskey. His memory was very limited, likely stemming from the fact that he was inebriated at the time of the incident. Either the fall, or possibly his impairment from intoxication, caused [redacted] to lose consciousness for an unknown period of time. When [redacted] came around some time later, he realized that [redacted], who was presumably also unconscious, was atop him suggesting that she, like [redacted], may have also fallen in a similar fashion. Both [redacted] and [redacted] were then transported to an emergency room with [redacted] having sustained a laceration about the head and a broken toe while [redacted] had sustained fractured ribs, a punctured lung, a fractured clavicle and a concussion.[redacted] advised the [redacted] investigator that both he and [redacted] were very familiar with the outdoor porch from where apparently they both fell as they had on numerous prior times smoked cigarettes while outside on this very same porch. Again, [redacted] had been a tenant with Mr. [redacted] at this location for over two years. There was no evidence that the porch was anything other than stable and completely in tact. Similarly, the property manager for this location also advised the [redacted] investigator that there is no history of individuals falling from the porch in this or any other manner.[redacted], through its independent investigator, made contact with [redacted] but she refused to meet with or provide any information to the investigator.[redacted] later advised the [redacted] investigator that he would not be pursuing a claim against the [redacted] policyholder, Mr. [redacted].As [redacted] never cooperated in the [redacted] investigation causing [redacted] to believe [redacted] was not making claim, and with [redacted] having advised [redacted] that he would not be making claim against Mr. [redacted], [redacted] closed its claim file.[redacted] stands ready to handle any claim that either [redacted] or [redacted] may choose to pursue against Mr. [redacted] however the circumstances surrounding this incident hardly suggest that Mr. [redacted] is liable for the injuries that either [redacted] or [redacted] sustained.Should you require any further assistance in this matter, please contact our Customer Relations Coordinator, Patty Gedd, at ###-###-#### or via email at [redacted]@nationwide.com.
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com regarding claim number ###### for [redacted] and to address his concerns about the claim.
Victoria Fire & Casualty DBA Titan has already responded to the complaint through the State of [redacted] Department of Insurance and has appropriately addressed all concerns on [redacted] diminution claims for damages to his 1999 Volkswagen.
Please accept this letter in response to Mr. [redacted]’s concerns submittedto the Revdex.com regarding the processing time of the fullwithdrawal on his contract. I hope you’ll find this information helpful inaddressing his concerns.Policy detailsComplainant: [redacted]Owner: [redacted]...
[redacted]Policy number: [redacted]NAIC code: 66869Complaint Number: [redacted]What we foundI have enclosed the withdrawal form submitted by [redacted] onJuly 27, 2105 at 2:24 p.m. We processed this on the same day of July27, 2015 in the gross amount of $44,667.70.Mr. [redacted] incurred a Contingent Deferred Sales Charge (CDSC) in theamount of $1500., therefore the net amount equaled $43,167.70. He didacknowledge the CDSC on page three of the withdrawal form before itwas processed.We did listen to the calls referenced in the complaint on July 27, 2015 at9:49 a.m. and 1:49 p.m.. On the 9:49 a.m. call, we stated Mr. [redacted]would get the market value as of close that day if we receive thewithdrawal form by 4:00 pm Eastern. On the call at 1:49 p.m., Mr.[redacted] did state he would get $45,000. minus $1500. in CDSC,however our representative informed him the withdrawal would be basedon the contract value as of the market close that day as opposed to theprevious day’s close.Unfortunately we can’t honor Mr. [redacted]’s request to compensate himfor the market value difference between July 26, 2015 and July 27, 2015in the amount of $845. since we processed this transaction correctly. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact ErinM[redacted] via telephone at ###-###-####, option *, extension [redacted] or viaemail at [redacted]Sincerely,Robert W[redacted]
For the auto policy, the original policy price is the amount I agreed to pay for and it is the main reason why I chose Nationwide instead of other companies. If any form they need me to sign, they should inform me before I sign the contract. It is not the right the way to do business like this to do something afterwards to intend charging more money for no matter what kind of reason. They mentioned that they contacted me several times in June and July, however, I am trapped in the moving and settle down stuff during that period. Also I have to focus on my new job and fit in my new position ASAP at that time. I didn't received the mail they mentioned and I can't remember whether I have received phone call from them, if so, I should response right after that. In addition, they should mention they will increase my policy price if I didn't sign the form in any letter or email before they make the decision. However I didn't see any words in any email or letter they sent to me mentioning the price change. Therefore it is clearly their fault to do business in this way and I refuse to pay anything beyond the original auto policy price.
Nationwide received the Revdex.com complaint that was submitted on 11/3/16. Several business units will be involved, in order to resolve this case. Unfortunately, we will be unable to meet the initial deadline date of 11/9/16. Nationwide is asking for a 10 day extension, or November 19, 2016. Please...
confirm by responding to this email that the extension has been granted. The resolution response will be provided earlier, if all issues have been addressed.Enjoy your day.Thank you Barb D[redacted]Customer Advocacy Coordinator W ###-###-#### | F ###-###-#### [redacted]
Dear Revdex.com,I have been in communication with the Local Nationwide Agency and we have resolved this issue and I was advised that another insurance company was involved. Thank you for your assistance[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]
Once again, I never said that I cancelled my previous policy to take Allieds policy. What I did say is that I had a homeowners insurance policy in tact when I purchased my home and I would have gone back to the same company to get insurance again (I wanted to have coverage for my air conditioning units) except that when I told [redacted] (my insurance agent) that I was looking into getting another home owners policy, [redacted] told me that they had a new policy to offer me that WOULD cover my air conditioning units. [redacted] also told me that the policy was so new that there wasn't a brochure or information to give to me and said that I would get information soon and took the policy out for me, himself and another person in his office as they wanted this great coverage too. Once again, Allied is trying to divert attention from the issue, which is their agent told me it was covered. This has nothing to do with my other homeowners policy, this has to do with what Allied told me was covered. Additionally, I provided the brochure to show that air conditioning units are covered (at their request.) This tactic of diverting attention from the real issue, which is misrepresentation of a product, is really unprofessional and shady. I have already provided written documentation about [redacted] telling me that he misrepresented the policy when he sold it to me. Honor what your agents are selling to customers Allied.
Regards,
[redacted]
They raised my premiums without notifying me there representatives are very rude when I called with questions. I use to pay 153.20 they raised to 214 without an explanation. When I called to cancell the premium with Theresa at their office location in Houston she did not let me that I will have a balance. Nation wide has unconvinced me a lot because of their terrible & unprofessional reps. I should not owe anything.
Regards,
[redacted]
I disagree if some, if not all of the statements made by [redacted]s message sent on 12/29/2014. And I think your response re-iterates the problem that I have with this claim and the reason I came to the Revdex.com in the first place. You stated that "CCC Valuescope was able to locate similar comparable vehicles which they used in researching the value of the 2002 Chevrolet van". My complaint is that not only did Valus scope go half way accross the country 800 miles away to find a compairable vehicle( which is way out side of industry standards), but the vehicles they found were not compairable, because CCC Valuescope is not adequately setup to value these vans. Like you said before, these vans are "Outliers" by design, CCC Valuescope, Edmunds, KBB, NADA. That is why Edmunds, KBB, NADA all have seperate ways to value RVs, which would be a more accurate to value Conversion Vans. Again I state that this van has a RV title. Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?[redacted] This is an example of 2 conversion vans, which valuescope would say has the exact same options, but the MSRP price is roughly $20,000 dollars different. What is different, is that the first van has a good but generic conversion package , and the second has a higher grade conversion packages. If you look at the website, the southern comfort conversion packages are all 15k to 20k more than the generic. I can provide more websites and provide more than 100 of these examples if needed. I say all this to say, all conversion packages are not the same, and that is why I must insist that you compare my van to other Regency Coronado LX vans. That is the only way to get a accurate valuation. I was able to provide several links to compairable Regency Coronado LX vans. This is not hard to do and there is no reason not to. Yes, these vans are more expensive, and "Outliers". But that is by design and these vans are all outliers when they are sold. Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?If you go to Edmunds, KBB or NADA and select every possible option on a 2014 chevy exspree van and you get $39,220. that is $10,000 to $30,000 dollars cheaper than the MSRP of one of these conversion vans new. This is why I am complaining. This is exactly what valuescope is doing, and it works well for %90 percent of the vehicles on the road, but not for conversion vans, and it clearly is not fair.Does this seem logical to you? Does this make sense?When I asked a local Chevy dealer to appraise my van they said they would not and could not give an accurate appraisal because there is no adequate way to do so.Now to directly address some of the statements made in your previous response.Statement 1:"CCC Valuescope was able to locate similar comparable vehicles which they used in researching the value of the 2002 Chevrolet van with the conversion package."--The vans used as compairisons were not Regency Coronado LX conversion, and not an addequate accurate compairson, not to mention over 800 miles away, way out side of the "Local Market".Statement 2:"The value did take into account all of the options that this vehicle had including body side moldings and the rear step bumper. The value add of these options is minimal due to the age of the vehicle but are considered within the overall value."--Every other option listed on the evalualtion had a dollar amount assigned to it, but not these 2. When I asked your claims adjuster about these options he said that thier were some options on the van that the system was not setup to handle. If these options were considered, I would exspect that a dollar amount would of been assigned to it and listed on the report no matter how small. And seeing how the cost to replace these options are thousands of dollars, I can't believe that they would not bother to put some dollar amount with it if they could. I will attached the vehicle evalueation to the complaint. If there was a small value amount added to the evaluation for these options I would love to see the email, or report from valuescope stateing exactly the small amount attached to this complaint. I think this again strenghts my complaint,the fact that valuescope thinks that something that cost $2,500 when new has no value when it is used. Valuescope is not adequately equipped to to evalueate conversion vans.Statement 3:"CCC Valuescope also conducted additional research by obtaining two dealer quotes." --I would like the response from these "Dealers" from NC attached to this complaint. Which dealers were contacted? Do they specialize in conversion vans? I don't know of a single reputable dealer who will give and evaluation appraisale over the phone with out looking at the vehicle. Were they informed that this was a Regency Coronado LX conversion van. I don't see how it is possible that the value they reported was exactly the same as what a standard van with out a conversion with similar options and milage is valued on Edmunds, KBB, NADA. That means either the conversion package to them is worth nothing or that Edmunds, KBB, NADA are all wrong. Statement 4:"To date I don’t see where a rental vehicle has been requested"On "11/25/2014 01:30 PM" I emailed Mr. League the following statement."I had also hoped that we would be able to resolve this before the Thanksgiving holidays, but since that does not seem possible, could I request a rental van until we can come to a consensus."Yes, I would like a rental Van as soon as possible. I rented a van on my own previously, can I be reinbursed for that a
s well. Also We were a 2 car family now we are down to 1 car which is leased, can I be reinbursed for the extra miles I have put on the leased car at the gong rate, since I was not provided a rental?To date I have not recieve an acceptable reponse to any of the questions I have asked. I would ask that you please address these descepancies with details and facts.1: Have you comapired my vehicle to other Regency Coronado LX vans? If not why not? If so please provide details.2. How much value was added for the side moldings and the rear step bumper? Please provide details of the amount, which you said was small, with proof from Valuescope that it was considered.3. Which other Dealers were contacted about the evaluation of my van, and what details were they provided? Do the specialize or even sell used Conversion Vans? Please provide all details you can. If you can't provide details, this should not be considered.4. How do I get a rental van? And can I be reimbursed for previous expenses incurred from not having a rental van provided, when I asked?
Regards,
[redacted]
I would like more information to why the vehicles I provided links to were not considered the same as the vehicles I own. I think the vehicles I provided links to were more in line with my vehicle because unlike the vehicles value scope provided info for, mine was by the same conversion company which makes a big differences. I provided link to Regency Conversion which is what my vehicle is and not what you compared it to. I provided info for a 2002 Regency Coronado LX which is exactly what I have. Why was that comparison not acceptable. And my vehicle was in very good condition before the accident. It had no dents, no rust and only minor wear to the seats which was in line for it age. It is not fair you judge it in poor condition after it has been wrecked. The conversion package I had applied to the van ," Coronado Regency Lx" is a much better quality and more expensive conversion package than any Value Scope used to compare my vehicle. Even in the comparison there were many options that Value Scope could not even price and left blank on their comparison. And many options they don't even list, because it is not common on a express van and come only with true conversions. For instance "value scope" list my van with body side moldings, I have documented proof that that is $2000.00 and the rear step bumper is $500.00. it is listed on the value scope appraisal, but their was no monetary value added to my vehicle for these options. Are you going to increase the value of my van by $2500.00 for these omissions ? Probably not since you chose not to believe every thing I have stated about the value of my van. I have over and over again put forth a detailed explanation with proof of why the valuescope evaluation is wrong and why I believe my van is worth more, and in return your only response has been no, with no explanations why the info I have provided you is wrong. You mentioned the info I provided you was of VANS that were outliers, The vehicles Valuescope provided were over 800 miles away, how much more of an outlier can you get? I will ask again that you compare my van to a "Regency Coronado LX" Which is exactly what I have. If you can't find any, please use the links I sent you. It is useless to uses the NADA, KBB, or Edmunds Values for conversion vans, because it is not the same. This Van and other "Coronado Regency Lx" has a RV title because it is very different and more expensive than normal vans. And what happened to my request for a rental car?
Regards,
[redacted]
all I ask that they call my agent and get her view of this unethical act
Regards[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]...
[redacted]
[redacted]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com regarding claim number ##### for [redacted] and to address his concerns about the claim.
Victoria Fire & Casualty DBA Titan has addressed the complaint through the State of [redacted] Department of Insurance and has appropriately addressed all concerns on [redacted] diminution claims for damages to his 1999 Volkswagen.
Sincerely yours,
[redacted]
Phone: ###-###-#### October 16, 2014Claim number: [redacted] Claim detailsInsurer: [redacted]Policyholder: [redacted]Claimant: [redacted]Claim number: [redacted]Loss date: August 20, 2014Loss location: [redacted] Dear [redacted], The damage to your 1999 Volkswagon Jetta GLS is all bolt on/bolt off parts. There was not any structural damage and you opted for an appearance allowance of $100.00 on the small dent on the exhaust shield. The estimate also notes the vehicle has scuffs, stains on the hood and a few small dings, which would not place the vehicle in a pre-loss condition of "excellent retail". As previously stated, this vehicle has been repaired to its pre-accident safe, mechanical and cosmetic condition by the shop of your choice. At this time, the offer of $200 for diminished value stands. Please find the enclosed payment in the amount of $200 as it is the undisputed amount. An alternative is for us to hire an independent appraiser, at our expense, and you to hire an independent appraiser, at your expense, and have the information reviewed by an arbitrator. The arbitrators decision would be final. For more information If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at ###-###-#### or [redacted]. Sincerely,[redacted]
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding a complaint you received from our insured [redacted]. We strive to provide quality service while conforming to the expectations of our customer and all regulations.
Ms. [redacted] had a water loss on March 22, 2015. ...
The water escaped from a pipe in a chase wall on an exterior bathroom. The water leaked down from the upstairs chase wall down into the living and dining area below requiring repair to the walls, ceiling and floor. A containment area was created to limit dust and disturbance to the other areas of the home during the drying and remediation process. On 4/30/15 Ms. [redacted] called our Customer Advocacy Center and stated she was unhappy that she was not placed in a hotel during her repair process and also that she was unhappy with the restoration company because they had not placed all her belongings back in the proper locations in the home. I notified the restoration company who responded and moved the contents into the areas she requested and we also discussed the considerations for additional living accommodations. I explained that while she does have coverage for ALE it was not initiated because the damages were limited to areas of the home that could be contained to prevent as much disturbance as possible. I spoke with her and explained that ALE (Additional Living Expenses) is cost incurred. In her situation as explained, she did not need nor was required to stay in a hotel and the cost was not incurred. No payment can be made since no cost was incurred.
I also apologized for any inconvenience that the loss and repairs caused her and for the issues with the general contractor who needed to return to properly move articles to her desired areas of the home.
Ms. [redacted] commented of a fall that was documented in her complaint to have occurred on May 5th. The fall was never reported to Nationwide but rather to the contractor, [redacted], following the completion of the restoration. The work was completed and a final walkthrough was held on 4/21/15. After the completion of the work Ms. [redacted] contacted the contractor and said she had tripped on the new carpet. It was determined that there was no installation issues with the new carpet but possibly tripped because the carpet was new.
I will include a copy of the estimate and photos in this response. If there are any additional questions or concerns please feel free to call my office at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
Warren Y[redacted]
[redacted]
I am satisfied with Nationwide's resolution of the dispute. I said in my previous response that I was satisfied with the offer from Nationwide's claims adjustor but that the Nationwide response on the Revdex.com complaint site was not quite the same as what the adjustor had offered. Since then, the adjustor has moved forward with the resolution he offered, and I am satisfied. [redacted]
I received a Authorization of release of information from your office. I filled out said complaint and signed said document and mailed it to your offices which I believe it must have got misplaced or not delivered because of the holiday season. When I applied for said insurance. I was and my wife were very firm that she was not to be put on said insurance policy. I am the sole owner of said vehicles and she doesn’t have a valid license to drive and I do. I returned the forms that were mailed to me on several occasions from the insurance company and mailed the back signed and dated. I also called the said company on several occasions and was told the insurance would be cancelled because of my wife not being a valid never. The insurance was supposed to be solely on me and no-one else and this was stated on several occasions. I feel I was mislead in the matter and it is very unethical to treat anyone this way. This letter also gives you permission to authorization to contact anyone you wish about this matter and also for them to release information to you.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards and Thank you so much for your help! [redacted]
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. They have resolved my complaint at this time.
I am writing in response to the above referenced file number. The member’s premiums are deducted from his paycheck and remitted by his employer. The member was also sending in checks for partial payments. Our records indicate that we spoke with this member on May 2, 2016 and advised him...
that we would work with his employer and conduct a complete review of his premium payments. An initial overpayment was identified and a refund in the amount of $29.36 was issued on April 21, 2016. A subsequent refund was issued in the amount of $92.52 on May 20, 2016. The member has been refunded the full amount identified in his correspondence. Our records show that both refund checks have been cashed by the member. If I can be of any further assistance in resolving this matter you may contact me directly at ###-###-####. Sincerely, Tom L[redacted]
[redacted] This communication is in response to the Revdex.com of Central Ohio’s inquiry in which you introduce the concerns of complainant [redacted] Nationwide has reviewed this file and the concerns expressed by [redacted]. In this response we will address: the length of time it took for the repair, the current mechanical condition of the Cadillac, paying [redacted] prior to the repair process, the extension and payment activity of rental coverage beyond the maximum policy provisions, and the value of the vehicle. The repair process did take longer than expected. The repair delays were caused by multiple factors. Nationwide allowed this customer 20 days additional rental car expenses over his purchased coverage. We also recognize that some delays were out of the control of Nationwide Insurance and the repair facility. The date of the accident was December 31, 2013 which is during the holiday season. Weather in Central [redacted] during this time was unusually harsh and there were a few unusually strong winter storms that occurred in January that slowed body shop productivity and parts supply activity. One of the lengthiest delays that impacted the delivery of the vehicle back to [redacted] involved his refusal to pick up the vehicle because of a back order on a part. The vehicle was ready for pickup on or about February 21, 2014. The only thing left to complete the repair was an after market trim molding that attaches to the fender. The part does not affect the drivability, functionality or safety of the vehicle. It is strictly a cosmetic trim molding. The replacement part was not available anymore so a new set of four had to be special ordered. We offered the vehicle back to [redacted] at that time so he could get out of the rental and even test drive the vehicle as all the accident related repairs had been completed. [redacted] refused to receive the vehicle back until that cosmetic part was received and installed. Nationwide is not aware of any repair issues or any new discovery of accident related damage. I responded to the [redacted] dealership to address a number of concerns of [redacted] brought the Cadillac to the Dealership to have a second opinion on the repairs completed and because he felt that the transmission must have been damaged from the accident. I discussed this with the service manager and technician after the Cadillac was put through extensive diagnostic testing. It was determined that there was nothing wrong with the transmission or any of the repairs completed. In fact, all of the vibrations felt in the vehicle including the front suspension were with in manufacturer’s specifications. As a result of the diagnostic testing there were a few general maintenance items that needed attention but nothing related to the accident. The items discovered to be defective were, a hub was worn out, or slight chance it sustained some damage form the accident and the brakes and rotors should be replaced. Nationwide conceded to pay for the hub as it could have been damaged by the accident but the brakes and rotors are maintenance items on the vehicle and have worn out over time. Nationwide did not offer to pay for the brakes and rotors. [redacted] was certain his vehicle must be a total loss because of the damage the vehicle sustained. As a licensed [redacted] Vehicle Damage Appraiser I conducted a complete damage assessment with [redacted]. It was determined that the vehicle was repairable based on the estimate and the supplemental damage that was discovered. The vehicle was brought in to the shop, put up on a lift and the undercarriage, suspension and drive-train were all inspected. There was no indication that the damage sustained would drive the value of the repair close to the actual cash value of the vehicle. [redacted] signed a repair authorization / election form at the repair shop and could have at any time told the shop he was not going to repair his vehicle there. This did not happen, so the repair shop moved forward with the repairs. All delays were addressed and Nationwide has paid a fair amount for the rental. [redacted] has Loss of Use (rental) coverage limits of $40 per day with a maximum coverage of 1100. Nationwide has paid for all rental provisions under the contract and also assisted our customer with additional rental car coverage over the purchased limits to compensate [redacted] for delays caused by the holiday’s, weather, and repair productivity . [redacted] chose to purchase additional insurance coverage on the rental vehicle. This contributed to additional expenses related to his rental contract. The value of the vehicle was determined by running the CCC evaluation. The evaluation method is approved by the [redacted] Department of Financial Services. The value stated on the evaluation is $18,566.14. The complete damage estimate is $11099.00. The damage ratio to value is 59.73% to value. In the state of [redacted], Regulation 64 indicates a vehicle should be considered a total loss when the estimate exceeds 75%. Nationwide will continue to address the concerns of [redacted]. All of the concerns addressed above have been discussed with [redacted] by myself and our Associate Director, [redacted] on more than one occasion. Our position has always been that if there are additional damages that are attributable to the December 31, 2013 accident we will address them. There has been very recent communication with [redacted] and he has not brought any new damage concerns to our attention. In response to second complaint I will address items in sequence 18.[redacted]’s vehicle did sit idle outside shop due to weather conditions and shop needed to find room to bring his vehicle in. The shop in good faith allowed [redacted] $280 or 7 days towards his rental car expense ( this was done by reducing his deductible expense of $500 – the shop collected $220 ) . There was an initial estimate prepared by our Nationwide Field Associate [redacted] for $7455.93. At that point [redacted] decided to use our direct repair shop [redacted] and signed the repair authorization 1-9-2014. I spoke to [redacted] and discussed we could put vehicle on lift to further assess the damages. [redacted] agreed to this and we both agreed to get suspension work done so we could move vehicle and check for mobility concerns. After this was completed, the shop and I explained to [redacted] there was no further transmission or structural damage concerns and his vehicle was repairable vs total loss. Final repair bill at [redacted] is attached in prior complaint transmission. I also attached a copy of the Market evaluation in that transmission along with repair authorization form. [redacted] believed his vehicle was a total loss which seems to be the customer concern moving along ( this does not support his reference to [redacted] Reg [redacted] as customer signed repair authorization at shop and vehicle was not totaled ). I explained that we per state guidelines have to do a market evaluation based on comparable vehicles on average – we use CCC1 estimating systems to do this and this was the more accurate way to assess vehicle worth vs NADA , Kelly books. His figure of $14000.00 I do not understand because we need to settle vehicles when they are totaled per real numbers – our vehicle worth evaluation $18566.14 ( If this vehicle was a total loss Nationwide would have to settle it per our supported settlement numbers not speculation ). [redacted] at any time could have elected not to repair his vehicle by telling the repair shop where he signed a repair authorization to stop repairs. He did not. Nationwide has acted in accordance with [redacted] State guidelines on fair claim settlement in this case. [redacted] believed we should allow replacement of left front tire and shock absorber even though they were not damaged in the loss. He stated they should be replaced in matched pairs. I stated that makes sense, but his policy only allows for only physical damaged items from loss and he would be responsible paying for those left side parts if he chooses to do so. Per [redacted], Nationwide Representatives [redacted] and my discussion, we agreed to take vehicle to second assessment location [redacted]. Their assessment found one concern a noise in the left front hub. Although it was questionable as loss related, Nationwide agreed to pay for this and did. [redacted]s assessment stated that all repairs were done properly and that there were some maintenance concerns with vehicle ( brakes were worn ). After this assessment, [redacted] agreed to take his vehicle back to [redacted] for some cosmetic concerns and these concerns where taken care of. [redacted]’s vehicle to date has been repaired properly and all know loss related items have been repaired per [redacted]’s final bill, several road tests and [redacted]s assessment. Reimbursement request for Vehicle loan and insurance payments are not covered expenses in this customer’s policy. They are preexisting obligations this customer had prior to loss.The Shop and Nationwide have paid for rental car expenses well above the policy provisions to assist this customer. We did not offer any more rental car assistance on this claim due to some of the delays were attributable to the customer. If you require further assistance, please contact Customer Relations Coordinator, [redacted] at ###-###-####, or by email at [redacted] between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:15 PM. Sincerely,
[redacted]Nationwide ###-###-####[redacted]
Kindly allow this letter to represent the [redacted] Insurance Company (“[redacted]”) response to a complaint dated August 26, 2015 on behalf of [redacted]. We understand you have identified that complaint as Complaint Number 10783102, as captioned above.[redacted] wishes to first inform you...
that it has no knowledge of [redacted] or how precisely Ms. [redacted] may have interest in the loss notice that [redacted] received relative to the incident that took place on the insured premises on October 11, 2014.[redacted] had sold a general liability policy to [redacted] that was in force on October 11, 2014. The policy provides liability insurance coverage for accidents on and about the premises. Mr. [redacted] is in the residential property business doing business in the Eugene, Oregon, area, as “Synthesis”. While Mr. [redacted], as land owner, owes certain legal duties to tenants and their guests, the circumstances surrounding this incident, as explained below, do not suggest that Mr. [redacted] would have liability exposure to either his tenant, [redacted] II (“[redacted]”), or [redacted]’s guest, [redacted] (“[redacted]”). Without such liability, [redacted] would not owe moneys under its liability policy sold to Mr. [redacted].[redacted] received a loss notice relative to the incident and its investigation revealed that [redacted], a tenant at the insured location for over two years, was hosting his girlfriend, [redacted], on the date of the incident. [redacted] and [redacted] had elected to step outside onto the porch having both consumed around 5 to 6 beers that were then chased by around 4 shots of cinnamon whiskey by the both of them, all prior to the incident. During the [redacted] investigation, [redacted] informed the investigator that, while on the outdoor porch, he had fallen off the porch after he and [redacted] had consumed the beer and whiskey. His memory was very limited, likely stemming from the fact that he was inebriated at the time of the incident. Either the fall, or possibly his impairment from intoxication, caused [redacted] to lose consciousness for an unknown period of time. When [redacted] came around some time later, he realized that [redacted], who was presumably also unconscious, was atop him suggesting that she, like [redacted], may have also fallen in a similar fashion. Both [redacted] and [redacted] were then transported to an emergency room with [redacted] having sustained a laceration about the head and a broken toe while [redacted] had sustained fractured ribs, a punctured lung, a fractured clavicle and a concussion.[redacted] advised the [redacted] investigator that both he and [redacted] were very familiar with the outdoor porch from where apparently they both fell as they had on numerous prior times smoked cigarettes while outside on this very same porch. Again, [redacted] had been a tenant with Mr. [redacted] at this location for over two years. There was no evidence that the porch was anything other than stable and completely in tact. Similarly, the property manager for this location also advised the [redacted] investigator that there is no history of individuals falling from the porch in this or any other manner.[redacted], through its independent investigator, made contact with [redacted] but she refused to meet with or provide any information to the investigator.[redacted] later advised the [redacted] investigator that he would not be pursuing a claim against the [redacted] policyholder, Mr. [redacted].As [redacted] never cooperated in the [redacted] investigation causing [redacted] to believe [redacted] was not making claim, and with [redacted] having advised [redacted] that he would not be making claim against Mr. [redacted], [redacted] closed its claim file.[redacted] stands ready to handle any claim that either [redacted] or [redacted] may choose to pursue against Mr. [redacted] however the circumstances surrounding this incident hardly suggest that Mr. [redacted] is liable for the injuries that either [redacted] or [redacted] sustained.Should you require any further assistance in this matter, please contact our Customer Relations Coordinator, Patty Gedd, at ###-###-#### or via email at [redacted]@nationwide.com.
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com regarding claim number ###### for [redacted] and to address his concerns about the claim.
Victoria Fire & Casualty DBA Titan has already responded to the complaint through the State of [redacted] Department of Insurance and has appropriately addressed all concerns on [redacted] diminution claims for damages to his 1999 Volkswagen.
Sincerely yours,
[redacted]
[redacted]
Phone: ###-###-####
Please accept this letter in response to Mr. [redacted]’s concerns submittedto the Revdex.com regarding the processing time of the fullwithdrawal on his contract. I hope you’ll find this information helpful inaddressing his concerns.Policy detailsComplainant: [redacted]Owner: [redacted]...
[redacted]Policy number: [redacted]NAIC code: 66869Complaint Number: [redacted]What we foundI have enclosed the withdrawal form submitted by [redacted] onJuly 27, 2105 at 2:24 p.m. We processed this on the same day of July27, 2015 in the gross amount of $44,667.70.Mr. [redacted] incurred a Contingent Deferred Sales Charge (CDSC) in theamount of $1500., therefore the net amount equaled $43,167.70. He didacknowledge the CDSC on page three of the withdrawal form before itwas processed.We did listen to the calls referenced in the complaint on July 27, 2015 at9:49 a.m. and 1:49 p.m.. On the 9:49 a.m. call, we stated Mr. [redacted]would get the market value as of close that day if we receive thewithdrawal form by 4:00 pm Eastern. On the call at 1:49 p.m., Mr.[redacted] did state he would get $45,000. minus $1500. in CDSC,however our representative informed him the withdrawal would be basedon the contract value as of the market close that day as opposed to theprevious day’s close.Unfortunately we can’t honor Mr. [redacted]’s request to compensate himfor the market value difference between July 26, 2015 and July 27, 2015in the amount of $845. since we processed this transaction correctly. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact ErinM[redacted] via telephone at ###-###-####, option *, extension [redacted] or viaemail at [redacted]Sincerely,Robert W[redacted]
For the auto policy, the original policy price is the amount I agreed to pay for and it is the main reason why I chose Nationwide instead of other companies. If any form they need me to sign, they should inform me before I sign the contract. It is not the right the way to do business like this to do something afterwards to intend charging more money for no matter what kind of reason. They mentioned that they contacted me several times in June and July, however, I am trapped in the moving and settle down stuff during that period. Also I have to focus on my new job and fit in my new position ASAP at that time. I didn't received the mail they mentioned and I can't remember whether I have received phone call from them, if so, I should response right after that. In addition, they should mention they will increase my policy price if I didn't sign the form in any letter or email before they make the decision. However I didn't see any words in any email or letter they sent to me mentioning the price change. Therefore it is clearly their fault to do business in this way and I refuse to pay anything beyond the original auto policy price.
Nationwide received the Revdex.com complaint that was submitted on 11/3/16. Several business units will be involved, in order to resolve this case. Unfortunately, we will be unable to meet the initial deadline date of 11/9/16. Nationwide is asking for a 10 day extension, or November 19, 2016. Please...
confirm by responding to this email that the extension has been granted. The resolution response will be provided earlier, if all issues have been addressed.Enjoy your day.Thank you Barb D[redacted]Customer Advocacy Coordinator W ###-###-#### | F ###-###-#### [redacted]
Dear Revdex.com,I have been in communication with the Local Nationwide Agency and we have resolved this issue and I was advised that another insurance company was involved. Thank you for your assistance[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]