Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the above referenced complaint.
On October 11, 2016, Esurance debited the account on file in the amount of...
$1,927.00 for the renewal premium.
On October 13, 2016, the insured contacted Esurance and requested to cancel her policy on the renewal date of October 21, 2016. On this same date, she made a policy change that increased the premium.
On October 14, 2016, Esurance issued a refund in the amount of $1.919.47. Please note that $7.53 was earned premium for coverage provided from the date of the policy change, October 13, 2016, through the cancellation date that was requested by the insured, October 21, 2016.
On November 21, 2016, Esurance received notification that the insured initiated a chargeback with her financial institution in the amount of $1,927.00. This amount is still owed to Esurance as Esurance already issued a refund to the insured in the amount of $1,919.47. The insured received the $1,927.00 from her bank as well as the $1,919.47 refund from Esurance. Therfore, she still owes Esurance $1,927.00.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this complaint.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/04) */
December 04, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Named Insured: ...
[redacted]
Complainant: [redacted]
Policy Number PAPA-XXXXXXX
Claim Number NYA-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: October 08, 2015
Insurance Company Esurance Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
Esurance received report of this loss from Ms. [redacted] on October 8, 2015. She reported that a 2008 Ford Edge insured by Esurance struck her 1995 Saturn while attempting to pass [redacted] vehicle. A Claim's Adjuster was assigned to investigate liability and secure statements from all involved parties.
On October 8, 2015. A statement was secured from the complainant, [redacted], Ms. [redacted] stated that she was traveling on Ridge Road which is 2 lanes in each direction. She advised that she was in the left lane, and in the process of changing lanes into the right lane to exit the roadway. Ms. [redacted] states the operator of the insured vehicle, [redacted], was traveling in the left lane behind her vehicle and attempted to pass [redacted] on the left side, entering the opposite direction of traffic. Ms. [redacted] then states the impact occurred as Ms. [redacted] was passing [redacted] vehicle improperly.
Esurance also secured a written statement from Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] contends that she was traveling in the left lane of 2 lanes with Ms. [redacted] traveling in the right lane. Ms. [redacted] stated the lanes were narrow and the complainant came into her lane striking her vehicle.
A police report was also reviewed during the investigation. The police report was filed by Ms. [redacted] after the loss occurred, and does not include Ms. [redacted]'s version of the loss. The police report provided a different account of the loss than initially provided by Ms. [redacted]. The police report states that the Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of the 2 lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left.
Esurance has reviewed the statements, damages, and scene of the accident and, could not prove that Ms. [redacted] is liable for this loss. Esurance is actively seeking a recorded statement from Ms. [redacted] to secure additional details regarding the accident and to ascertain if there is any liability that can be attributed to her actions. At this time liability has been denied to Ms. [redacted] as there is not sufficient evidence that Esurance is liable for this loss.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX or by email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assistant Branch Manager, NY Claims
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"...The police report states that the Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of the 2 lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left."
That is inaccurate. The police were told that both vehicles were in the LEFT lane and Ms. [redacted] signaled to, and was in the process of, going into the right lane...
"...Esurance has reviewed the statements, damages, and scene of the accident and, could not prove that Ms. [redacted] is liable for this loss..."
Esurance had made no effort to do what is right and they refused to comply with Ms. [redacted]'s insurance when contacted.
Firstly, Ms. [redacted] is not even on the insurance and the company does not want to own up to this. They also fraudulently listed her boyfriend (and policy holder), [redacted] as the driver. If Esurance was truly trying to determine the accurate story, then they would have contacted the police to obtain video of the incident....Ask yourself, why would one go through all this troubleincluding suggesting that you obtain videoif they were at fault?
Also, the police report does not include Ms. [redacted]'s account because SHE FLED THE SCENEbecause she is guilty! If her car was the one that was struck, there is NO WAY she would have simply left. This is another FACT that Esurance refuses to acknowledge in addition to the fact that they sent Ms. [redacted] to an auto body shop to get estimates and spoke as if they were going to do the right thing and pay for the damages...then suddenly they changed their mind...???
Do the right thing. Have integrity and morals...I know that is not something most companies do, but in today's world, it very much needed.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/29) */
December 29, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted], Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Named Insured: [redacted]
Complainant: [redacted]
Policy Number PAPA-XXXXXXX
Claim Number NYA-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: October 08, 2015
Insurance Company Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer rebuttal submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
Esurance acknowledges the driver of the vehicle, [redacted], is not listed on Mr. [redacted]'s insurance policy. Ms. [redacted] does qualify as an insured under the policy terms as she was operating a covered auto at the time of loss.
Ms. [redacted] appears to be disputing the facts presented in the police report. The police report states that Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of two lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left. This is the information the police gathered from Ms. [redacted] at the time of report. If these details are disputed, Ms. [redacted] will need contact the appropriate Police Department to have the report amended. Ms. [redacted] has indicated she did not leave the scene of loss without exchanging information with Ms. [redacted].
An estimate was also setup to review the damages and assist in our liability decision. The completion of an estimate is not an acceptance of liability.
Esurance did speak with Grange Insurance, the insurance carrier for Ms. [redacted], on November 19, 2015. Esurance advised Grange that we were denying liability based on our investigation. No further requests have been made by Grange to discuss this loss.
There has been no additional evidence provided to support that Esurance was the proximate cause of this loss therefore the liability stance will remain.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assistant Branch Manager, NY Claims
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/12/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1.) The girl driving the vehicle was not on the insurance. Maybe she has been added AFTER the incident but she was not on the insurance
2.) She fled the scene
3.) You still have not contacted the police to obtain video evidence.
It is clear that you are not ethical people and communicating with you is an utter waste of time. This is the last day of 2015 and here we are still having to deal with this. Please keep in mind that whatever goes around comes around. One dayfor all of those involved in this wrong doingsomeone will steal, kill, and destroy something you love and I hope you remember this incident and justice is loss in you case.
Get lost,
-Ms. [redacted].
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/24) */
November 24, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
1000 Broadway, Suite 625
Oakland, CA XXXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Re: Revdex.com Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant...
Name: [redacted]
Insured Name: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAFLXXXXXXX
Claim Number: FLAXXXXXXX
Date of Loss: 11/06/2015
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the above referenced complaint.
This accident occurred on 11/6/2015, when Mr. [redacted] made a left turn, crossed over four lanes and struck Ms. [redacted]' vehicle, a 1998 Lincoln Continental. A liability adjuster and a staff appraiser were assigned that same date to investigate the claim and appraise the involved vehicles. Esurance contacted Ms. [redacted] and obtained a statement with regards to the facts of loss. Ms. [redacted] was advised of the claims process and that in order to move forward with her claim and complete the liability investigation, Esurance must also make contact with the insured vehicle driver. Ms. [redacted] expressed her intentions to obtain a rental in the interim, as her vehicle was inoperable.
On 11/11/2015, Ms. [redacted] was advised that Esurance had accepted liability for the loss on behalf of Mr. [redacted], and that her vehicle was damaged beyond the cost to repair, therefore, it had been deemed to be a total loss. It was communicated with Ms. [redacted] that her vehicle had been involved in a prior incident and was already branded with a salvage title due to that prior total loss. It was advised that this salvage title would have a negative impact on her vehicle's valuation for this new incident. Pending completion of her vehicle's total loss evaluation, Esurance agreed to pay for Ms. [redacted]' use of a comparable rental vehicle.
On 11/14/2015, Esurance extended a total loss settlement offer for the actual cash value of the vehicle to Ms. [redacted]. However, her 1998 Lincoln Continental was subject to a financing lien that (as per Florida law) must be protected upon insurance settlement.
Upon reaching an agreement with Ms. [redacted] and the lienholder to resolve this claim, Esurance issued payment on 11/18/2015, to the lienholder. Esurance also issued payments on that date to Ms. [redacted] for her incurred rental vehicle expenses, and for her cost to obtain a copy of the police report. As a courtesy, Esurance also agreed to continue paying for her rental vehicle for another week, through 11/25/2015, in order to have transportation for a fair amount of time.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter that has now been resolved with the consumer.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Unit Manager
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/05) */
August 05, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted], Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAMI-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced personal automobile insurance policy.
In her complaint [redacted] states that at the time of policy purchase, Esurance advised her that she would have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage on this policy.
Esurance records reflect that this policy was purchased on July 13, 2015, effective July 17, 2015.
On July 21, 2015, Esurance was notified of an accident that took place that same date involving the 2011 Honda listed on this policy. Esurance advised Ms. [redacted] that the policy did not have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage selected at that time. Ms. [redacted] requested that Esurance review the original sales call since she advised she requested those coverages at the time of purchase.
On July 22, 2015, Esurance reviewed the original sales call and about 7 minutes into the call Esurance asked what she was currently paying for auto insurance. Ms. [redacted] advised about $230 a month with another carrier. Esurance asked for a summary of her current coverages and Ms. [redacted] stated that she had liability only coverage at that time. Esurance advised that we were showing the 2011 Honda as financed, and quoted a premium with Comprehensive and Collision Coverage and also a premium with just liability coverage. Prior to the end of the sales call, Esurance verified the coverages Ms. [redacted] had selected and she had declined Comprehensive and Collision Coverage at that time. Esurance also advised if Ms. [redacted] wanted to add Comprehensive and Collision at a later date she could go online to Esurance.com to quote adding those coverage on at any time.
Ms. [redacted] states that Esurance advised her she was getting the exact same coverage she had with her prior carrier. Ms. [redacted] advised Esurance during the sales call that her prior policy also did not have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage.
Since no error was made by Esurance, Comprehensive and Collision coverage is not available for the July 21, 2015, loss.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to the concerns. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct all future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at; [redacted], XXXXX.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On Behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/05) */
February 5, 2016
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted]
[redacted]
Via Electronic Response: ...
[redacted]
[redacted]
To Whom It May Concern:
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the consumer correspondence submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger automobile policy.
In the complaint, the insured is demanding that Esurance waive the cancellation fee.
Esurance records indicate the above referenced policy was purchased on July 17, 2014, with the same effective date, with a six-month policy term for the full term premium of $236.50. The policy provided coverage for a 2007 Toyota Camry Solara SE/SLE and [redacted] as a single operator.
Esurance records indicate on July 17, 2014, Mr. [redacted] accepted the Terms and Conditions of his Esurance automobile policy, which outlines under the Disclosure of Fees Section "that you may be charged a Cancellation Fee of $50.00 if you cancel your Policy for any reason or if we cancel your Policy due to failure to pay any premium when due".
Esurance records indicate Mr. [redacted] requested to cancel his automobile policy effective January 13, 2016, therefore; the cancellation fee of $50.00 is valid.
On January 28, 2016, the final payment of $39.08 was processed from method of payment on file.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this file, please direct all correspondence to [redacted], [redacted]
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/13) */
January 13, 2016
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAMD-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: 7/7/2015
Claim Number: NJS-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. ("Esurance"), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, acknowledges receipt of the complaint submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced claim for a private passenger [redacted] policy.
This loss occurred on July 7, 2015. The insured, Mr. [redacted], was involved in a collision loss where Esurance deemed him not liable. The owner of the claimant vehicle in this case involved in the loss with Mr. [redacted] is a transportation company. They were not aware of the loss at the time and were not providing Mr. [redacted] any answers. Esurance also set up a claim with the claimant insurance company. Mr. [redacted] chose to use his collision policy to repair his vehicle.
On July 10, 2015, Esurance issued payment to Mr. [redacted] body shop on in the amount of $924.74 (cost to repair $1,427.74 minus his $500.00 deductible). Mr. [redacted] had no rental coverage on his automobile policy; therefore; no rental vehicle was provided. After the claim was paid Esurance sent the payment information to Esurance Subrogation Unit.
Starting on July 21, 2015, the Esurance Subrogation Unit made several phone calls and mail attempts to contact the claimant carrier to subrogate for Mr. [redacted] damages.
On August 25, 2015, the claimant carrier finally made a decision and denied liability for the claim. Esurance advised Mr. [redacted] of the claimant carriers' decision. Esurance was then notified that Mr. [redacted] filed a lawsuit against the claimant carrier. The claimant carrier advised Esurance that they needed to have Mr. [redacted] drop the lawsuit or let it expire so they could issue payment. At that time the
claimant carrier had then agreed to pay for Mr. [redacted] damages. The process of letting the suit expire and claimant carrier re-reviewing their decision caused a delay in the claim resolution.
To date Esurance has attempted to collect for Mr. [redacted] damages and have been unsuccessful. The fact that Mr. [redacted] is our insured, on January 5, 2016, Esurance issued payment for his deductible in the amount of $500.00. Esurance will also not be charging Mr. [redacted] for this loss against his policy. Esurance will continue efforts to collect from the claimant carrier for the damages caused by the claimant.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this file, please direct all correspondence to Kimberly Sims, compliance Analyst, P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX, or via email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Unit Manager
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/01/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
In response to this complaint Esurance contacted me, issued payment for the $500 deductible and contacted the other carrier to arrange for rental reimbursement.
This is a fair and equitable resolution, which is exactly what I was hoping to achieve.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: NO SECOND REPORT WAS EVER RUN. ANOTHER LIE! ESURANCE WILL TRY ANY LIE IN THE BOOK TO SAVE DOLLARS. NO SECOND REPORT WAS EVER RUN, THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I WILL NOT DEAL WITH THIS ABSURDITY OF CONSTANT LIES. MECHANICAL WORK IS IRRELEVANT, THE FIRST REPORT IS BOGUS. ESURANCE IS AWARE IM DRIVING THIS CAR WITH CARBON MONOXIDE FUMES COMING IN FROM TRUNK AND HAVE NO RESPONSE BUT TO LIE!!! ESURANCE ALSO KOWS I WAS PULLED OVER FOR NO BLINKER, FROM WRECK, REFUSED ANY MORE TIME FOR RENTAL, WE GIVER YOU ALL WE CAN BY LAW,,,LMAO. AGAIN, LOOK AT THE FACTS, AUTO TRADERS (((NATIONAL)))AVERAGE SEARCH SHOWS MY CAR WORTH $2700 TO $4300, THESE CLOWN SAY $1100,,,JUMP IN THE LAKE. TELL THE JUDGE, YOU CROOKS!!!
Chicago-based claims software-maker [redacted] Inc. announced that it and 15 of its customers signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in various class action suits pending in [redacted] These consolidated suits, [redacted] [redacted], et al., relate to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared total losses by insurers.
CCC said the settlement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by CCC or its customers. The proposed classes represent all customers of the settling carriers who had a total loss claim from Jan. 28, 1989 to the present, for which CCC’s product and service (now called CCC Valuescope) were used to perform the valuation.
A word from our sponsor:
Allstar has a network of offices across the U.S. and more than 15 Specialty Insurance Divisions, our experienced team of underwriters will help you get the job done. With 50 years in the insurance arena we will find creative solutions for your clients.[redacted]
The settlement itself is subject to court approval, and a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the court Wednesday. Notice to members of the settling classes will then be issued, and the company said it anticipates that a final approval hearing will take place before the end of the year.
Terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay notice and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total about $8 million, and including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully reserved for these payments. Other settlement costs, including claims by class members, will be paid by the insurance companies that are participating in the settlement.
In addition to its settlement contribution, CCC will also engage the services of an independent, third party as a court-appointed monitor to periodically review CCC Valuescope’s methodology for five years following settlement and to oversee the performance of various product validation studies.
Get Insurance Journ
Sincerely,[redacted]
Re: Case Number: [redacted]
Complainant Name: [redacted]
Insured Name: [redacted]
Policy Number: [redacted]
Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
NAIC Number: [redacted]
Dear [redacted]
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (“Esurance”), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the follow-up consumer correspondence submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger automobile policy.
Esurance records indicate all policy adjustments have been completed and on April 10, 2017, a refund in the amount of $78.96 was credited back to the account ending in[redacted]
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/11/30) */
November 30, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAPA-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
On November 09, 2015, Ms. [redacted] contacted Esurance and inquired about the renewal premium increase for the upcoming term. Esurance advised Ms. [redacted] that the increase to the renewal premium is a result of the way we calculate rates in Pennsylvania. Esurance also advised that although we try to avoid increasing our premiums, there are times we need to review and adjust our rates based on the overall cost of doing business.
Esurance periodically reviews and updates our state-approved rating plan to more accurately reflect our costs, including general cost and frequency of claims in each state.
Esurance encourages Ms. [redacted] to contact us and review her policy to see if there are any changes she could make to reduce her premium.
Esurance is unable to release proprietary rating information to Ms. [redacted] as requested in this complaint.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted] Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX or by email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Esurance reviewed this policy with our Billing Department. The account was sent to collections as Esurance refunded the insured and then she charged back the payment which left a balance on the policy. The insured then had the chargeback reversed to return the money to Esurance.
At the time of the original response to the Revdex.com, Esurance had not yet received notification from the financial institution that the chargeback had been reversed. The account has been removed from collections.
No.: [redacted] ...⇄ Complainant: Derrek [redacted]
Policyholder: Derrek [redacted]
Claim Number: [redacted]
Date of Loss: 01/03/2018
Policy Number: [redacted]
Company: Esurance Insurance Company
Dear Dispute Resolution Specialist:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Insurance Company, is in receipt of the customer complaint submitted by Derrek[redacted] regarding a claim on the above referenced Personal Homeowners Policy.
According to the customer complaint submitted to the Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] contends delays in the handling of the referenced claim.
The above referenced loss was reported to Esurance on January 4, 2018, by the named insured, Derrek [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] reported that a pipe had burst within the second floor bathroom, causing resulting water damages to his home. An Esurance Claims Representative was assigned within twenty-four hours of receipt of the claim report.
On January 5, 2018, the Esurance Claims Representative established contact with Mr. [redacted] to discuss the loss. At that time, a letter was also sent to Mr. [redacted] explaining his policy coverages. On this same date, emergency mitigation services were dispatched to inspect the water damages. An Esurance business partner contractor, ServPro, performed the mitigation to Mr.[redacted] home, and removed any non-repairable materials so a build back re-inspection could be conducted.
On January 31, 2018, Esurance sent Mr. [redacted] a letter explaining the status of the claim.
The build back re-inspection had occurred, and the review of the estimate had been ongoing pending information needed to quantify the repair costs.
As of this date, Esurance has finalized the review process, and provided Mr. [redacted] with the repair estimate. A letter outlining the claim settlement breakdown has been sent to Mr. [redacted], and payment has been issued for the damages. Esurance believes that the claim has been resolved to Mr.[redacted] satisfaction.
Esurance maintains that Mr. [redacted] had been provided with written and verbal notice over the course of the claim. Esurance strives to provide exceptional customer service, and apologizes if this was not the case for Mr. [redacted]
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.
Sincerely,
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Insurance Company
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the above referenced complaint.
On October 11, 2016, Esurance debited the account on file in the amount of...
$1,927.00 for the renewal premium.
On October 13, 2016, the insured contacted Esurance and requested to cancel her policy on the renewal date of October 21, 2016. On this same date, she made a policy change that increased the premium.
On October 14, 2016, Esurance issued a refund in the amount of $1.919.47. Please note that $7.53 was earned premium for coverage provided from the date of the policy change, October 13, 2016, through the cancellation date that was requested by the insured, October 21, 2016.
On November 21, 2016, Esurance received notification that the insured initiated a chargeback with her financial institution in the amount of $1,927.00. This amount is still owed to Esurance as Esurance already issued a refund to the insured in the amount of $1,919.47. The insured received the $1,927.00 from her bank as well as the $1,919.47 refund from Esurance. Therfore, she still owes Esurance $1,927.00.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this complaint.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/04) */
December 04, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Named Insured: ...
[redacted]
Complainant: [redacted]
Policy Number PAPA-XXXXXXX
Claim Number NYA-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: October 08, 2015
Insurance Company Esurance Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
Esurance received report of this loss from Ms. [redacted] on October 8, 2015. She reported that a 2008 Ford Edge insured by Esurance struck her 1995 Saturn while attempting to pass [redacted] vehicle. A Claim's Adjuster was assigned to investigate liability and secure statements from all involved parties.
On October 8, 2015. A statement was secured from the complainant, [redacted], Ms. [redacted] stated that she was traveling on Ridge Road which is 2 lanes in each direction. She advised that she was in the left lane, and in the process of changing lanes into the right lane to exit the roadway. Ms. [redacted] states the operator of the insured vehicle, [redacted], was traveling in the left lane behind her vehicle and attempted to pass [redacted] on the left side, entering the opposite direction of traffic. Ms. [redacted] then states the impact occurred as Ms. [redacted] was passing [redacted] vehicle improperly.
Esurance also secured a written statement from Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] contends that she was traveling in the left lane of 2 lanes with Ms. [redacted] traveling in the right lane. Ms. [redacted] stated the lanes were narrow and the complainant came into her lane striking her vehicle.
A police report was also reviewed during the investigation. The police report was filed by Ms. [redacted] after the loss occurred, and does not include Ms. [redacted]'s version of the loss. The police report provided a different account of the loss than initially provided by Ms. [redacted]. The police report states that the Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of the 2 lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left.
Esurance has reviewed the statements, damages, and scene of the accident and, could not prove that Ms. [redacted] is liable for this loss. Esurance is actively seeking a recorded statement from Ms. [redacted] to secure additional details regarding the accident and to ascertain if there is any liability that can be attributed to her actions. At this time liability has been denied to Ms. [redacted] as there is not sufficient evidence that Esurance is liable for this loss.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX or by email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assistant Branch Manager, NY Claims
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"...The police report states that the Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of the 2 lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left."
That is inaccurate. The police were told that both vehicles were in the LEFT lane and Ms. [redacted] signaled to, and was in the process of, going into the right lane...
"...Esurance has reviewed the statements, damages, and scene of the accident and, could not prove that Ms. [redacted] is liable for this loss..."
Esurance had made no effort to do what is right and they refused to comply with Ms. [redacted]'s insurance when contacted.
Firstly, Ms. [redacted] is not even on the insurance and the company does not want to own up to this. They also fraudulently listed her boyfriend (and policy holder), [redacted] as the driver. If Esurance was truly trying to determine the accurate story, then they would have contacted the police to obtain video of the incident....Ask yourself, why would one go through all this troubleincluding suggesting that you obtain videoif they were at fault?
Also, the police report does not include Ms. [redacted]'s account because SHE FLED THE SCENEbecause she is guilty! If her car was the one that was struck, there is NO WAY she would have simply left. This is another FACT that Esurance refuses to acknowledge in addition to the fact that they sent Ms. [redacted] to an auto body shop to get estimates and spoke as if they were going to do the right thing and pay for the damages...then suddenly they changed their mind...???
Do the right thing. Have integrity and morals...I know that is not something most companies do, but in today's world, it very much needed.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/29) */
December 29, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted], Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Named Insured: [redacted]
Complainant: [redacted]
Policy Number PAPA-XXXXXXX
Claim Number NYA-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: October 08, 2015
Insurance Company Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer rebuttal submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
Esurance acknowledges the driver of the vehicle, [redacted], is not listed on Mr. [redacted]'s insurance policy. Ms. [redacted] does qualify as an insured under the policy terms as she was operating a covered auto at the time of loss.
Ms. [redacted] appears to be disputing the facts presented in the police report. The police report states that Ms. [redacted] was in the right lane of two lanes heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was in the left lane also heading North on Ridge Avenue. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to take the exit ramp when Ms. [redacted] cut across from the left. This is the information the police gathered from Ms. [redacted] at the time of report. If these details are disputed, Ms. [redacted] will need contact the appropriate Police Department to have the report amended. Ms. [redacted] has indicated she did not leave the scene of loss without exchanging information with Ms. [redacted].
An estimate was also setup to review the damages and assist in our liability decision. The completion of an estimate is not an acceptance of liability.
Esurance did speak with Grange Insurance, the insurance carrier for Ms. [redacted], on November 19, 2015. Esurance advised Grange that we were denying liability based on our investigation. No further requests have been made by Grange to discuss this loss.
There has been no additional evidence provided to support that Esurance was the proximate cause of this loss therefore the liability stance will remain.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assistant Branch Manager, NY Claims
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/12/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1.) The girl driving the vehicle was not on the insurance. Maybe she has been added AFTER the incident but she was not on the insurance
2.) She fled the scene
3.) You still have not contacted the police to obtain video evidence.
It is clear that you are not ethical people and communicating with you is an utter waste of time. This is the last day of 2015 and here we are still having to deal with this. Please keep in mind that whatever goes around comes around. One dayfor all of those involved in this wrong doingsomeone will steal, kill, and destroy something you love and I hope you remember this incident and justice is loss in you case.
Get lost,
-Ms. [redacted].
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/24) */
November 24, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted]
Dispute Resolution Specialist
1000 Broadway, Suite 625
Oakland, CA XXXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Re: Revdex.com Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant...
Name: [redacted]
Insured Name: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAFLXXXXXXX
Claim Number: FLAXXXXXXX
Date of Loss: 11/06/2015
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the above referenced complaint.
This accident occurred on 11/6/2015, when Mr. [redacted] made a left turn, crossed over four lanes and struck Ms. [redacted]' vehicle, a 1998 Lincoln Continental. A liability adjuster and a staff appraiser were assigned that same date to investigate the claim and appraise the involved vehicles. Esurance contacted Ms. [redacted] and obtained a statement with regards to the facts of loss. Ms. [redacted] was advised of the claims process and that in order to move forward with her claim and complete the liability investigation, Esurance must also make contact with the insured vehicle driver. Ms. [redacted] expressed her intentions to obtain a rental in the interim, as her vehicle was inoperable.
On 11/11/2015, Ms. [redacted] was advised that Esurance had accepted liability for the loss on behalf of Mr. [redacted], and that her vehicle was damaged beyond the cost to repair, therefore, it had been deemed to be a total loss. It was communicated with Ms. [redacted] that her vehicle had been involved in a prior incident and was already branded with a salvage title due to that prior total loss. It was advised that this salvage title would have a negative impact on her vehicle's valuation for this new incident. Pending completion of her vehicle's total loss evaluation, Esurance agreed to pay for Ms. [redacted]' use of a comparable rental vehicle.
On 11/14/2015, Esurance extended a total loss settlement offer for the actual cash value of the vehicle to Ms. [redacted]. However, her 1998 Lincoln Continental was subject to a financing lien that (as per Florida law) must be protected upon insurance settlement.
Upon reaching an agreement with Ms. [redacted] and the lienholder to resolve this claim, Esurance issued payment on 11/18/2015, to the lienholder. Esurance also issued payments on that date to Ms. [redacted] for her incurred rental vehicle expenses, and for her cost to obtain a copy of the police report. As a courtesy, Esurance also agreed to continue paying for her rental vehicle for another week, through 11/25/2015, in order to have transportation for a fair amount of time.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter that has now been resolved with the consumer.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Unit Manager
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/05) */
August 05, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted], Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAMI-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced personal automobile insurance policy.
In her complaint [redacted] states that at the time of policy purchase, Esurance advised her that she would have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage on this policy.
Esurance records reflect that this policy was purchased on July 13, 2015, effective July 17, 2015.
On July 21, 2015, Esurance was notified of an accident that took place that same date involving the 2011 Honda listed on this policy. Esurance advised Ms. [redacted] that the policy did not have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage selected at that time. Ms. [redacted] requested that Esurance review the original sales call since she advised she requested those coverages at the time of purchase.
On July 22, 2015, Esurance reviewed the original sales call and about 7 minutes into the call Esurance asked what she was currently paying for auto insurance. Ms. [redacted] advised about $230 a month with another carrier. Esurance asked for a summary of her current coverages and Ms. [redacted] stated that she had liability only coverage at that time. Esurance advised that we were showing the 2011 Honda as financed, and quoted a premium with Comprehensive and Collision Coverage and also a premium with just liability coverage. Prior to the end of the sales call, Esurance verified the coverages Ms. [redacted] had selected and she had declined Comprehensive and Collision Coverage at that time. Esurance also advised if Ms. [redacted] wanted to add Comprehensive and Collision at a later date she could go online to Esurance.com to quote adding those coverage on at any time.
Ms. [redacted] states that Esurance advised her she was getting the exact same coverage she had with her prior carrier. Ms. [redacted] advised Esurance during the sales call that her prior policy also did not have Comprehensive and Collision Coverage.
Since no error was made by Esurance, Comprehensive and Collision coverage is not available for the July 21, 2015, loss.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to the concerns. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct all future correspondence to [redacted], Compliance Analyst, at; [redacted], XXXXX.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On Behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/05) */
February 5, 2016
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted]
[redacted]
Via Electronic Response: ...
[redacted]
[redacted]
To Whom It May Concern:
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance) on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is in receipt of the consumer correspondence submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger automobile policy.
In the complaint, the insured is demanding that Esurance waive the cancellation fee.
Esurance records indicate the above referenced policy was purchased on July 17, 2014, with the same effective date, with a six-month policy term for the full term premium of $236.50. The policy provided coverage for a 2007 Toyota Camry Solara SE/SLE and [redacted] as a single operator.
Esurance records indicate on July 17, 2014, Mr. [redacted] accepted the Terms and Conditions of his Esurance automobile policy, which outlines under the Disclosure of Fees Section "that you may be charged a Cancellation Fee of $50.00 if you cancel your Policy for any reason or if we cancel your Policy due to failure to pay any premium when due".
Esurance records indicate Mr. [redacted] requested to cancel his automobile policy effective January 13, 2016, therefore; the cancellation fee of $50.00 is valid.
On January 28, 2016, the final payment of $39.08 was processed from method of payment on file.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this file, please direct all correspondence to [redacted], [redacted]
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/13) */
January 13, 2016
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAMD-XXXXXXX
Date of Loss: 7/7/2015
Claim Number: NJS-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. ("Esurance"), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, acknowledges receipt of the complaint submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced claim for a private passenger [redacted] policy.
This loss occurred on July 7, 2015. The insured, Mr. [redacted], was involved in a collision loss where Esurance deemed him not liable. The owner of the claimant vehicle in this case involved in the loss with Mr. [redacted] is a transportation company. They were not aware of the loss at the time and were not providing Mr. [redacted] any answers. Esurance also set up a claim with the claimant insurance company. Mr. [redacted] chose to use his collision policy to repair his vehicle.
On July 10, 2015, Esurance issued payment to Mr. [redacted] body shop on in the amount of $924.74 (cost to repair $1,427.74 minus his $500.00 deductible). Mr. [redacted] had no rental coverage on his automobile policy; therefore; no rental vehicle was provided. After the claim was paid Esurance sent the payment information to Esurance Subrogation Unit.
Starting on July 21, 2015, the Esurance Subrogation Unit made several phone calls and mail attempts to contact the claimant carrier to subrogate for Mr. [redacted] damages.
On August 25, 2015, the claimant carrier finally made a decision and denied liability for the claim. Esurance advised Mr. [redacted] of the claimant carriers' decision. Esurance was then notified that Mr. [redacted] filed a lawsuit against the claimant carrier. The claimant carrier advised Esurance that they needed to have Mr. [redacted] drop the lawsuit or let it expire so they could issue payment. At that time the
claimant carrier had then agreed to pay for Mr. [redacted] damages. The process of letting the suit expire and claimant carrier re-reviewing their decision caused a delay in the claim resolution.
To date Esurance has attempted to collect for Mr. [redacted] damages and have been unsuccessful. The fact that Mr. [redacted] is our insured, on January 5, 2016, Esurance issued payment for his deductible in the amount of $500.00. Esurance will also not be charging Mr. [redacted] for this loss against his policy. Esurance will continue efforts to collect from the claimant carrier for the damages caused by the claimant.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this file, please direct all correspondence to Kimberly Sims, compliance Analyst, P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX, or via email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Unit Manager
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/01/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
In response to this complaint Esurance contacted me, issued payment for the $500 deductible and contacted the other carrier to arrange for rental reimbursement.
This is a fair and equitable resolution, which is exactly what I was hoping to achieve.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: NO SECOND REPORT WAS EVER RUN. ANOTHER LIE! ESURANCE WILL TRY ANY LIE IN THE BOOK TO SAVE DOLLARS. NO SECOND REPORT WAS EVER RUN, THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I WILL NOT DEAL WITH THIS ABSURDITY OF CONSTANT LIES. MECHANICAL WORK IS IRRELEVANT, THE FIRST REPORT IS BOGUS. ESURANCE IS AWARE IM DRIVING THIS CAR WITH CARBON MONOXIDE FUMES COMING IN FROM TRUNK AND HAVE NO RESPONSE BUT TO LIE!!! ESURANCE ALSO KOWS I WAS PULLED OVER FOR NO BLINKER, FROM WRECK, REFUSED ANY MORE TIME FOR RENTAL, WE GIVER YOU ALL WE CAN BY LAW,,,LMAO. AGAIN, LOOK AT THE FACTS, AUTO TRADERS (((NATIONAL)))AVERAGE SEARCH SHOWS MY CAR WORTH $2700 TO $4300, THESE CLOWN SAY $1100,,,JUMP IN THE LAKE. TELL THE JUDGE, YOU CROOKS!!!
Chicago-based claims software-maker [redacted] Inc. announced that it and 15 of its customers signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in various class action suits pending in [redacted] These consolidated suits, [redacted] [redacted], et al., relate to the valuation of vehicles that have been declared total losses by insurers.
CCC said the settlement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by CCC or its customers. The proposed classes represent all customers of the settling carriers who had a total loss claim from Jan. 28, 1989 to the present, for which CCC’s product and service (now called CCC Valuescope) were used to perform the valuation.
A word from our sponsor:
Allstar has a network of offices across the U.S. and more than 15 Specialty Insurance Divisions, our experienced team of underwriters will help you get the job done. With 50 years in the insurance arena we will find creative solutions for your clients.[redacted]
The settlement itself is subject to court approval, and a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the court Wednesday. Notice to members of the settling classes will then be issued, and the company said it anticipates that a final approval hearing will take place before the end of the year.
Terms of the settlement agreement will require CCC to pay notice and administration fees and other costs associated with the settlement. The company estimates that these costs will total about $8 million, and including available insurance proceeds of $1.8 million, the company is fully reserved for these payments. Other settlement costs, including claims by class members, will be paid by the insurance companies that are participating in the settlement.
In addition to its settlement contribution, CCC will also engage the services of an independent, third party as a court-appointed monitor to periodically review CCC Valuescope’s methodology for five years following settlement and to oversee the performance of various product validation studies.
Get Insurance Journ
Sincerely,[redacted]
April 11, 2017
Revdex.com
Attention[redacted]Via Electronic Response: [redacted]
Re: Case Number: [redacted]
Complainant Name: [redacted]
Insured Name: [redacted]
Policy Number: [redacted]
Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
NAIC Number: [redacted]
Dear [redacted]
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (“Esurance”), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the follow-up consumer correspondence submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger automobile policy.
Esurance records indicate all policy adjustments have been completed and on April 10, 2017, a refund in the amount of $78.96 was credited back to the account ending in[redacted]
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to address your inquiry.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/11/30) */
November 30, 2015
Revdex.com
Attention: [redacted] Dispute Resolutions
XXX XXth Street, Suite 550
Oakland, CA XXXXX-XXXX
Via Electronic Response: www.oakland.Revdex.com.org
Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Complainant Name:...
[redacted]
Named Insured: [redacted]
Policy Number: PAPA-XXXXXXX
Insurance Company: Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Dear Ms. [redacted]
Please be advised that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is in receipt of the consumer complaint submitted by [redacted] regarding the above referenced private passenger [redacted] insurance policy.
On November 09, 2015, Ms. [redacted] contacted Esurance and inquired about the renewal premium increase for the upcoming term. Esurance advised Ms. [redacted] that the increase to the renewal premium is a result of the way we calculate rates in Pennsylvania. Esurance also advised that although we try to avoid increasing our premiums, there are times we need to review and adjust our rates based on the overall cost of doing business.
Esurance periodically reviews and updates our state-approved rating plan to more accurately reflect our costs, including general cost and frequency of claims in each state.
Esurance encourages Ms. [redacted] to contact us and review her policy to see if there are any changes she could make to reduce her premium.
Esurance is unable to release proprietary rating information to Ms. [redacted] as requested in this complaint.
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please direct any future correspondence to [redacted] Compliance Analyst, at P.O. Box 2890, Rocklin, CA, XXXXX or by email to [redacted]@esurance.com.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Compliance Analyst
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Esurance reviewed this policy with our Billing Department. The account was sent to collections as Esurance refunded the insured and then she charged back the payment which left a balance on the policy. The insured then had the chargeback reversed to return the money to Esurance.
At the time of the original response to the Revdex.com, Esurance had not yet received notification from the financial institution that the chargeback had been reversed. The account has been removed from collections.
RE: Case...
No.: [redacted] ...⇄ Complainant: Derrek [redacted]
Policyholder: Derrek [redacted]
Claim Number: [redacted]
Date of Loss: 01/03/2018
Policy Number: [redacted]
Company: Esurance Insurance Company
Dear Dispute Resolution Specialist:
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Esurance), on behalf of Esurance Insurance Company, is in receipt of the customer complaint submitted by Derrek[redacted] regarding a claim on the above referenced Personal Homeowners Policy.
According to the customer complaint submitted to the Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] contends delays in the handling of the referenced claim.
The above referenced loss was reported to Esurance on January 4, 2018, by the named insured, Derrek [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] reported that a pipe had burst within the second floor bathroom, causing resulting water damages to his home. An Esurance Claims Representative was assigned within twenty-four hours of receipt of the claim report.
On January 5, 2018, the Esurance Claims Representative established contact with Mr. [redacted] to discuss the loss. At that time, a letter was also sent to Mr. [redacted] explaining his policy coverages. On this same date, emergency mitigation services were dispatched to inspect the water damages. An Esurance business partner contractor, ServPro, performed the mitigation to Mr.[redacted] home, and removed any non-repairable materials so a build back re-inspection could be conducted.
On January 31, 2018, Esurance sent Mr. [redacted] a letter explaining the status of the claim.
The build back re-inspection had occurred, and the review of the estimate had been ongoing pending information needed to quantify the repair costs.
As of this date, Esurance has finalized the review process, and provided Mr. [redacted] with the repair estimate. A letter outlining the claim settlement breakdown has been sent to Mr. [redacted], and payment has been issued for the damages. Esurance believes that the claim has been resolved to Mr.[redacted] satisfaction.
Esurance maintains that Mr. [redacted] had been provided with written and verbal notice over the course of the claim. Esurance strives to provide exceptional customer service, and apologizes if this was not the case for Mr. [redacted]
Thank you for allowing Esurance the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.
Sincerely,
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.
On behalf of Esurance Insurance Company