Denise Ibsen agency

Copy of insurance Quote from previous company that Denise was suppose to match (except I did Want less building coverage)Every thing else the same.Instead of one policy we wound up with two Companies and two policiesShe said we would get more coverage at a better price this wayI never saw the second policy until after the fireI trusted that everything would be the same except that I would have less building coverage and more liability coverageShe was aware that I owned the building and the fixtures, while [redacted] owned the Liquor License and the business.No one ever explained to me that, because both names were on both policies, that there was no content coverage on any thing.Had the policies been written with my name on the building and hers on the second policy we may have had a chance to collect the contents that I had rented to [redacted] [redacted] paid me $per month for the building and the contentsBecause of this mistake we are in troubleThe Building Insurance wrote checks to cover the Building LossHowever the checks were made out to [redacted] and [redacted] DBA [redacted] .I has taken us two weeks just to get the checks processedMy name is not on the Business account, and [redacted] is not on the Building

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information regarding the concerns of the complainantWe are saddened by the losses suffered by the complainant and that they chose level s of coverage at the time the policy was purchased that was not sufficient for the loss they are now
reportingHowever, Denise Ibsen and Farmers Insurance are not responsible for these losses nor the cause of the coverage concerns raised by herThe complaint received alleges that the policy was purchased from Denise IbsenIn fact, the policy in question is a property only policy written by the client’s granddaughter, who was a licensed producer in our agency at the timeDenise was not a party to the conversations between the client and her granddaughter (the writing agent) relating to the purchase of the policyDenise Ibsen was assured by the writing agent that she had prepared the policy the way her grandmother requestedDenise Ibsen believed this to be true because the initial recommendation for building coverage was $325,000, but the complainant opted to only purchase $300,in coverageThe explanation provided was that she wanted a lower premium amount and that she did not believe the value of her building or the potential for loss would exceed the $300,The coverage reduction is documented by the updated application where the amounts are changed and inititaled by her granddaughterWe are unable to provide additional information relating to the conversations or intent of the transaction because the client’s granddaughter abruptly left her employment in the agency shortly after the policy was writtenThe complaint alleges that the policy was purchased from Farmers InsuranceIn actuality, the policy was written with Covington Specialty Insurance Company because the business was not eligible under the Farmers Insurance underwriting guidelinesThe complainant was aware of this prior to purchase of the policyThe complaint also alleges that the policies were wrong and not disclosed correctlyIt is this agency’s practice to provide all of the quote pages and information to the clientIn this instance, the client opted to sign and return only the forms that had signatures on themOnce the policy was issued, a copy of the entire policy, including the declaration page was providedThe declaration page outlines the exact coverage included on the policy and who the insuring company isConsumers have the opportunity and the responsibility to review their policy and to notify the company and/or the agency if changes need to be madeThe client has owned her business for many years and had been through the insurance purchasing process multiple times prior to purchasing the policy in question and was assumably familiar with the process, as well as her rights and responsibilities as a consumerThis office provided copies of the policy multiple times and at no time were we made aware by the client that there was any concern or issue with the coverage levels or how it was writtenPrior to receiving this complaint, the Agency had not received any information from the complainant or the insuring company that there was any question of coverage relating to the property owner and renter names being listed incorrectly on the policy nor that there was a denial of coverage for that reasonThe policy itself includes coverage for the building in the amount of $300,It had an effective date of October 10, and expires on October 10, The allegations from the complaint arise from a fire loss reported to have occurred on August 14, 2016, approximately months into the policy periodThe complaint alleges that Denise Ibsen should pay $30,for a property claim related to the fire lossThe first notice from the complainant that she was concerned that the policy did not include property coverage was after the loss occurredAt first report, she indicated that she believed that she should have had $20,in contents coverage on the policyWe reveiwed the policy in detail and confirmed that she only purchased building coverage on the policy in the amount of $300,The amount claimed in the Revdex.com complaint differs and we have no information as to why there is an increase in amount of over $10,at this timeWe again want to express our sadness over the loss suffered by the complainant, but are unable to make payment nor are we the cause of her uninsured financial lossAll claim details are being handled directly between her and the insuring company, Covington Insurance

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide additional information related to the concerns of the complainantThe work history of complainant’s granddaughter reported by the granddaughter verbally and on her resume differ from the statements provided in the complainant’s responseAs to the terms of employment, details of performance by the employee, and reasons for discontinuing the employee/employer relationship, we are unable to further comment because of the privacy regulations governning such situationsRegardless, those details are out of the scope of discussion relating to the complainant’s concern regarding her policyThe complainant purchased separate property and liability policies from our AgencyIt was our understanding that the complainant and the individual she indicates was her renter, were business partnersWe thus wrote the policies as suchThe complainant received copies of the quotes prior to the purchase and copies of the policies following the purchase for reviewThe issues being raised regarding coverage and how the policy was written should have been brought to our attention after her initial review of the policy last OctoberThere was a liability claim filed on that policy in December and at no time during that time was it brought to our attention by the insured or the carrier that there was an issue with the coverage written or how the entitites were listed on the policyWe also have no information from the carrier relating to the complainant’s new concerns outlined here relating to that relationship or a denial of coverage for the reasons reportedLiability coverage provides coverage against claims of negligence that are caused by the insured against a third partyTypically, items in the care, custody, and control of an insured are excludedThere would likely be no coverage under a liability policy for a fire of this nature unless it was found that the insured was the cause of the fireTo our knowledge, that was not the case in this situationHowever, we did refer the complainant’s to the claim representatives handling her claims in each of these situations as they are ultimately the ones who make the final decision as to whether payment is owed under a policy or notAdditionally, all licensed agents are required to carry E&O coverageWe do our best to ensure that everything is done correctly down to the last detail for each clientWhen we became aware of the complainant’s concerns that we had erred in the writing of her policy, we reported a claim to our carrierWe previously provided the contact information for that claim to the complainantIt is our understanding that the carrier’s initial review did not find that payment was owed to the complainant as outlined in her reportsWe continue to feel saddened that the complainant feels that we did not handle her policy correctlyHowever, we maintain that we did not err in writing the policy but wrote it correctly with the information provided to us by the insured at the time of purchaseWe provided her with copies of all relevant documents including a detailed quote and copies of the entire policy for liaiblity and for property coverageShe had the opportunity and the responsibility to bring the items she felt needed to be updated to our attention last year so that they could be correctedFurther concerns relating to our performance should be directed to our E&O carrierThank you again for the opportunity to provide this response

Copy of insurance Quote from previous company that Denise was suppose to match (except I did Want less building coverage). Every thing else the same.Instead of one policy we wound up with two Companies and two policies. She said we would get more coverage at a better price this way. I never saw the second  policy until after the fire. I trusted that everything would be the  same except that I would have less building coverage and more liability coverage. She was aware that I owned the building and the fixtures, while [redacted] owned the Liquor License and the business.No one ever explained to me that, because both names were on both policies, that there was no content coverage on any thing.Had the policies been written with my name on the building and hers on the second policy we may have had a chance to collect the contents that I had rented to [redacted]. [redacted] paid me $1500.00 per month for the building and the contents. Because of this mistake we are in trouble. The Building Insurance wrote checks to cover the Building Loss. However the checks were made out to [redacted] and [redacted] DBA [redacted].I has taken us two weeks just to get the checks processed. My name is not on the Business account, and [redacted] is not on the Building.