Free Air Fine Art

I am rejecting this response because: it is full of incorrect informationPlease excuse the unprofessional presentation of my response, my old scanner quit working months ago, and my laser printer is no longer working correctly, as the *** foreman explained would happen when I first met him at my homeIt's 2:A.Mand I am getting close to my day deadline, so I will send it as it isRegards,*** ***

Thank you for allowing Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Company the opportunity to respond to the ***’s rebuttal.The inquiry submitted by Mr*** dated 7/20/reference policy number ** *** All statements in the response provided to Mr*** in the letter dated 8/3/are accurate in relation to policy ** *** In the rebuttal dated 8/17/2017, the ***s included *** Bank statements for the last months showing checking withdraws by Grange Property & Casualty CompanyA review of the bank statements indicates that withdraws made prior to 5/12/are associated with a different policy number, ** *** At the time the response dated 8/3/was prepared, we were unaware that there was a second policy involved. A review of policy ** *** indicates that it was issued as a dwelling under construction for the same property located at *** *** *** effective 5/15/It is unclear where the ***s received information regarding a 2-year policy for homes under constructionAs indicated in the response dated 8/3/2017, policies written for dwellings under construction require that construction be completed within monthsIf documentation of completed construction is not received within months, the policy is automatically set up for non-renewal one year from the new business effective dateOur Underwriting department did not receive documentation of completed construction and the policy was set up for non-renewal effective 5/15/A copy of the Notice of Non-renewal for policy ** *** was mailed to Mr*** on 3/5/is enclosed. Upon termination of policy ** ***, the ***’s agent submitted a new policy as a dwelling under construction effective 5/15/under policy number TH It is unclear if the policy was intended to be written as a completed structureHowever, since the policy was submitted as a dwelling under construction, the policy was subjected to the automated process requiring documentation of completed constructionAs that documentation was not received, policy ** *** was set up for non-renewal effective 5/15/2017. The rebuttal indicates that Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Company continues to withdraw from the ***’s checking account each month for automobile and homeowners insurance premiumsThe last withdrawal under homeowners policy ** *** was made on 4/14/in the amount of $The last withdrawal under automobile policy ** * *** was made on 6/14/in the amount of $75.45. It does appear that there was a miscommunication between Mr***, his agent *** *** ***, and Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Company regarding the completed construction of his home and the timeframes of the policy effective datesWe apologize for the confusion this has causedHowever, Grange Property & Casualty did provide coverage for the ***’s property for two years between 5/15/and 5/15/As the policy was cancelled effective at the policy expiration date of 5/15/2017, the premium for the policy term was fully earned and no refund will be issued. Sincerely,Jonathon C***

The amount does not restore me to pre-incident condition.  Prior to Grange's insured being arrested for DUI after crashing into my car, I had a perfectly good one owner 2010 Ford Escape V6 XLT with 62250 miles.  There are no comparable vehicles currently on the market that can be purchased that amount proposed by Grange.Grange's insured, [redacted] is responsible to restore my car to pre-incident condition or replace my vehicle with a comparable vehicle.  The Theoretical price suggested by Grange does not reflect the real cost to replace my vehicle in the current market value.

-The facts are that we stand by our statement dated 7/20/2017.-We are not surprised that Jonathon C[redacted] continues to fabricate all the factsabout our home under construction.-We applied for an insurance policy in 201 5 for a home under construction for 2years-To Jonathon C[redacted] it is impossible to complete the home is 6 months-Granger lnsurance continues to withdraw from our checking account everymonth for auto and home payment.*Our agent Mike at Granger lnsurance / Diversified lnsurance was told and invitedto inspect our complete ranch house, but he never came out.*This is unbelievable how Mike and Johnathon C[redacted] would "fake" all theimportant facts.*They continue to making false statements that our insurance policy was onlyissues for 6 months, but at the same time we were allowed to have insurance for2 years.*We are including the following documentation:      o [redacted] Bank statements for the last 12 months showing checking         withdraws by Grange Insurance.      o [redacted] Real Estate Statement      o Copy of Non-Renewal      o Copy of Coverage (2 forms)      o Revdex.com & Grange lnsurance statements*We demand that Granger lnsurance refund us $1200 for our wrongly cancelled  policy.[redacted]                          [redacted]

Please review our response in the attached .pdf file.
Thank you.

To Whom It May Concern: The policy was renewed in November 2016. The insured had originally contacted the AAA Ohio Auto Club Insurance Agency for a Renters Insurance Policy on November 7, 2015.  The invoices the insured has been receiving were to keep that coverage active, but the...

policy has since cancelled for non-payment of premium. Thank you for allowing Grange Insurance to respond to this complaint. Sincerely, Joey G[redacted]

Thank you for allowing Grange Mutual Casualty Company the opportunity to respond to the inquiry from Mr. [redacted].   This incident occurred on September 5, 2016 when our insured, Mr. [redacted], was attempting to park his boat in a slip.  While trying to do so, the wind blew his boat...

toward Mr. [redacted]’s boat, and in a panic, our insured accidentally hit the throttle and bumped Mr. [redacted]’s boat.  Points of impact were the starboard quarter of the insured boat with the bow of Mr. [redacted]’s boat at the anchor roller.  Our insured reported the loss to Grange Insurance on September 15, 2016 and a Property Damage claim was opened for Mr. [redacted] at that time.   On September 15, 2016, our adjuster spoke with our insured and Mr. [redacted] and confirmed that coverage would be afforded and liability was accepted for this loss.  Our insured reported his damage as a thumbnail sized chip in the fiberglass in the starboard rear.  Mr. [redacted] submitted an estimate on September 16, 2016 from [redacted] Marine for $9776.05 which included replacement of the anchor roller, repair of 18 stanchions and removal and reinstallation of the bow rail.  (A “stanchion” is an upright bar, post or frame forming a support.  These stanchions support the bowrail that circles the boat, away from the point of impact.) He submitted a second estimate on September 22, 2016 from [redacted] Marine for $10,485.00 which noted labor, miscellaneous materials and that boat should be inside for 1 month before repair.  On September 23, 2016 we contacted Mr. [redacted] to obtain the location of the boat and advised that we would be sending an independent appraiser to inspect the damages.  On September 26, 2016, a referral was made to [redacted] Marine Surveyors who then referred the inspection to [redacted] with [redacted] Surveying because he was closer to the boat’s location.    On September 30, 2016, Mr. [redacted]’s boat was inspected by [redacted] who wrote an estimate for $638.65 to include replacement of the anchor roller and its fasteners.  He noted that starting with the sixth bowrail stanchion base there are cracks coming from the stainless steel fasteners.  The cracks appeared to be old and are consistent with either overtightening or using too large of a screw for the drilled hole.  He noted all six stanchions along each side have identical cracking.  He also noted that the bowrails appear to be in the proper position and were not pushed to the starboard side, which was the direction of the impact.  He did note a bend in the hand rail on the starboard side, but felt that most likely happened during docking as it was not at the point of impact.  Mr. [redacted] also inspected our insured’s boat and noted scr[redacted]es on the starboard quarter at the same height as the anchor on Mr. [redacted]’s boat.  This is consistent with the description of the accident.   We provided Mr. [redacted] with the two estimates submitted by Mr. [redacted] and received an email from Mr. [redacted] on September, 30, 2016 advising that he had spoken with both vendors who wrote the estimates, and that both were of the same opinion that the damage at the base of the stanchions was previous damage.  On October 3, 2016, our adjuster issued payment per the appraiser’s estimate for $638.65 for damage related to this loss.  She emailed a copy of the estimate at this time.   On October 26, 2016, Mr. [redacted] spoke with a Claims Manager and advised that he did not agree with our appraiser’s estimate of related damages and that the vendors where he had received estimates advised him that they had not spoken with our appraiser.  At that time, our adjuster contacted appraiser [redacted] and reached him on October 31, 2016.  He explained that the only damage related to this incident was the anchor area and not the stanchions or railing.  He reiterated what was in his report and included commentary on the fact that there was dirt in the cracks by the screws, which was another indicator that this was prior damage.  He believed that Mr. [redacted] requested an estimate of damage from the vendors but did not mention the facts of this incident.  Mr. [redacted] confirmed that he spoke with [redacted] at [redacted] Marine and [redacted] at [redacted] Marine.  Mr. [redacted] also requested a copy of the appraiser’s report when speaking with the Claims Manager.  This was sent via email to Mr. [redacted] on October 28, 2016.    On October 27, 2016, Mr. [redacted] emailed photos of his boat to Grange Insurance to demonstrate that the damage was not there previously, however, we were unable to clearly see the areas of damage when attempting to zoom in.  There was also no date for record of when the photos were taken.    On November 2, 2016, our adjuster reached [redacted] at [redacted] Marine.  He advised that he was only asked to write an estimate for damage.  He stated that Mr. [redacted] indicated the boat had been hit in bow area but pointed out damage to bow pulpit and entire railing on both sides.  He did not judge causation, only wrote an estimate for repair as requested.  He went on to say that he could not connect the vast majority of damage with this impact.  First, he advised that there was no damage to the railing itself.  In addition, the railing is connected to the deck and there are fasteners in four corners where it connects.  If there had been an impact to the railing, the railing would have been bent and the gel coat at the base would have fractured and shown upward pull.  The fractures would have looked crisp.  He stated the cracks he saw were black and did not feel it was related to this incident.  He advised he did not want any further involvement in this matter.   Attempts to contact [redacted] at [redacted] Marine were made on October 31, 2016 and November 2, 2016, but were unsuccessful.  A message was left on November 2, 2016 requesting a return call, which has not been received to date.    On November 4, 2016, our adjuster received a call from [redacted] with [redacted] Marine Surveyors who advised that Mr. [redacted] contacted him and was not in agreement with the inspection findings.  Mr. [redacted] advised our adjuster that he went to two marinas and found identical boats with the same cracks.  He stated that he is standing behind Mr. [redacted]’s inspection and report.    Thank you for the opportunity to explain our position.  If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.       Sincerely,    Jon M[redacted] AVP Division Claims Manager ###-###-#### m[redacted][email protected]

Grange Insurance is in receipt of the response from Mr. [redacted] and thank you for allowing us to respond. We have deemed Mr. [redacted]’s 2010 Ford Escape a total loss. Grange Insurance does not owe to replace Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle. We owe the actual cash value for the vehicle. We have provided Mr. [redacted] with the CCC One market valuation report that used 21 comparable vehicles to determine the marketplace value. Vehicle market valuation services like CCC one are approved by the Ohio Department of Insurance for use in settlement of total loss claims. We are confident that the value from CCC One is fair and we will not be changing our settlement offer.  Sincerely,Jon M[redacted]AVP, Division Claims ManagerTrustgard Insurance Company###-###-####m[redacted][email protected]

Dear Ms. [redacted], Thank you for allowing Grange the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s concern regarding the settlement amount presented for his 2006 Chevrolet Silverado that was damaged in this loss. Grange received notice of this loss on February 24th, 2018. As Mr. [redacted] mentions,...

our insured struck his vehicle which was parked at the time of the accident. We did not have Mr. [redacted]’s contact information at the time of report, however he reached our adjuster on February 27th to discuss the loss. Mr. [redacted] informed Grange that he would drop off his vehicle at [redacted] Glass the following afternoon. A rental reservation was created for Mr. [redacted] on that date as well. Mr. [redacted] was informed on March 6th by a Grange appraiser that his vehicle was considered a total loss and that he would be hearing from an adjuster regarding the value of his vehicle. Mr. [redacted] was contacted on March 7th and advised that our staff appraiser noted significant rust to the rocker panels, cab corners, frame and the rear bumper.  This information was considered when determining the overall condition of the vehicle while running the evaluation through [redacted]. Grange reviewed the vehicle options with Mr. [redacted] and advised that condition of his auto was considered below average due to the excessive rust, reducing the actual cash value of his vehicle. An offer was presented for $3,864. Mr. [redacted] disagreed with this amount and picked up his vehicle from the shop. It was also on this date that Mr. [redacted]’s complaint was submitted to the Revdex.com. The following day, Mr. [redacted] submitted receipts for recent maintenance on the vehicle which increased the actual cash value to $4,163. Mr. [redacted] was advised of the value increase on March 9th, to which he replied that his father had contacted an attorney on his behalf. On March 12th, Grange received a call from [redacted]’s father regarding the evaluation of [redacted]’s vehicle. After reviewing our position, he advised our adjuster that he would be contacting his own carrier for an evaluation.In regards to Mr. [redacted]’s desired settlement, we feel that our assessment of his 2006 Chevrolet Silverado is fair and reasonable when considering the condition the auto was in at the time of loss. To date, Mr. [redacted] has yet to provide his lienholder information to determine what is currently owed on the vehicle. It appears now he may be pursuing this loss through his own carrier as well. If you have further questions or I can provide any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####. Sincerely, Steven E[redacted]Fields Claims AMD ManagerP: ###-###-#### E[redacted]@grangeinsurance.com Cc:         Ken K[redacted] – Vice President Claims

Hello,You are closing my case but I have yet to receive correspondence from Grange stating that they have corrected where they sent me to collections (thus affecting my credit score) and also stating my account balance is $0 as of the end of my policy on 09/24/2017. I don’t know how this can be closed with no confirmation and no documentation that Grange has truly done what they should have.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to answer this inquiry. As Mr [redacted] mentions in this complaint filed on November 24th, the driver involved and the 98 Volvo he was driving at the time of loss were not listed on our named insured's policy nor was the vehicle owner. Furthermore, our...

named insured was not mentioned on the police report and does not appear to be legally liable for this loss. Mr[redacted] mentions in his complaint that his calls were being ignored by the handling adjuster. Voice messages were left for Mr[redacted] on the 16th and 17th of November with contact being made on the 20th. Mr[redacted] was advised at that time that it did not appear Grange would have coverage for this loss, however we were still investigating. Grange also returned calls to Mr[redacted]'s insurance agent on the 23rd and 25th explaining that it did not appear there would be liability coverage available for this accident. The driver involved was not working for our named insured at the time of loss. The vehicle owner's contact information was provided to Mr[redacted]'s agent later on the 25th and the claim was subsequently denied. Since filing this complaint, Grange has been notified by Mr[redacted]'s agent that they will be pursuing Progressive for damages.I hope this addresses any concerns you may have. If you require additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely,Steven E[redacted]

This will be our final rebuttal to Johathon C[redacted] and Granger InsuranceThe facts are that we stand by our statement dated 7/20/2017 when we supplied additional information from Chase Bank and 2nd additional insurance policy that Jonathan C[redacted] was not aware that existed.We are not surprised that Jonathan C[redacted] continues to fabricate all the facts about our home under construction.Additionally, we stand by our all statements that have been made in regards to this case.To Jonathon C[redacted], this is unbelievable on your response in the last rebuttal “It does appear that there was miscommumnication between Mr. [redacted], his agent [redacted], and Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Company regarding the competed construction of his home and the timeframes of the policy effect dates. We apologize for the confusion this caused.”In previous statement Jonathon C[redacted] claimed that we purchased the policy for only 6 months, currently he admitted that we purchased the policy for 2 years.Records indicated that we completed our residence in 2016 (see included Lake County Tax copy).Our policy should have never been cancelled, our insurance policy should have been reclassified (house complete) and continued forward from 2016, our agent was advised and never stopped by to verify completion.RE: Jonathon C[redacted]’s statement on 8/24/2017 “...miscomunnication, we apologize for the confusion this caused”We demand adjustment!If Granger Insurance does not respond we will file a claim with Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine[redacted]                [redacted]

A refund of $304.45 was mailed to the address on the policy on March 22, 2017

Thank you for allowing Trustgard lnsurance Company the opportunity to respond to Ms.[redacted]'s inquiry.We are happy to assist Ms. [redacted] with her request to cancel her homeowner's insurancepolicy. However, as she was informed in a telephone conversation with our customer servicedepartment on December...

19,2016, a signed cancellation request form is required to process apolicy cancellation. This form is required as it confirms that the insured acknowledges that noclaims can be made under the policy for losses which occur after the date of cancellation shownon the form.As previously directed in her conversation with our customer service department, she will needto contact her agent, [redacted], at ###-###-#### or via email at[redacted] They will provide the forms necessary to cancel the policy.** ** ** [redacted]

In response to your correspondence dated October 30, 2015, I have reviewed the above captionedclaim and respond accordingly to Mr. [redacted]'s reply.During the course of handling the claim, Grange advised Mr. [redacted] of his options and assisted himwith repairs of his choice. Mr. [redacted] choose to use [redacted] and we preserved hischoice of repairs and did not indicate where he could or could not repair his vehicle. At the momentGrange became aware of the excessive charges Grange called Mr. [redacted] and set expectations wewould not consider the addition charges. Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity to move his vehicle toanother shop or work the charges out directly with the shop of his choice.Mr. [redacted] choose the shop, authorized the repairs and continued the repairs knowing Grangewould not consider the excessive charges. Grange has indemnified Mr. [redacted] for the repairs basedon market rates and provided him a rental during the process. The charges paid by Mr. [redacted] werebased on excessive labor rates not approved by Grange.Best regards,Jennifer S. N[redacted]

In response to your correspondence dated October 5, 2016, I have reviewed the abovecaptioned claim and respond accordingly.Grange Insurance received this claim for hail damage to the 2004 Honda CR-V on May30, 2014. Claims Representative Angie H[redacted] spoke to Ms. [redacted] on June 3, 2014 andarranged to...

have the vehicle inspected for damages and completion of an estimate ofrepair. Following the inspection, Ms. H[redacted] made several attempts to reach Ms. [redacted]with no success. On June 18, 2014, Ms. [redacted] contacted Ms. H[redacted] and requested thatthe payment check be issued to her only and explained that she and [redacted] wereseparated. Ms. H[redacted] indicated that the check must be in [redacted]'s name since he was theowner. A check in the amount of $2,885.06 was issued payable to [redacted] K. [redacted] andthe lien holder [redacted]. The check was mailed to [redacted].On June 30, 2014, [redacted] contacted Ms. H[redacted]. He explained that he and Ms.[redacted] were in the process of getting a divorce. He said that his attorney was workingwith Ms. [redacted]'s attorney to resolve ownership of the vehicle. He added that thevehicle may have more damage than was captured on our estimate. Ms. H[redacted] indicatedthat a re-inspection would be necessary, but since Ms. [redacted] had possession of thevehicle she would need to work with us on those arrangements.On July 14, 2016, Ms. [redacted] called Grange Insurance to discuss her claim. Ms. H[redacted]is no longer employed at Grange, so the claim was assigned to Claims RepresentativeCarolyn S[redacted]. Ms. [redacted] stated that she was in the process of converting the title ofthis vehicle into her name and was entitled to payment for this claim. Ms. S[redacted] askedher to send her a copy of the title once this was completed.Grange received a copy of the title on August 30, 2016. After attempting to void theinitial check, Ms. S[redacted] was informed that the check had been remitted to the state ofSouth Carolina as unclaimed funds and that the check could not be voided. Ms. S[redacted]attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] to discuss her findings, but was unable to reach her.Ms. [redacted] contacted Ms. S[redacted] on September 22, 2016. Ms. S[redacted] explained thesituation to Ms. [redacted]. They agreed that Ms. S[redacted] would contact the Office of theTreasurer of South Carolina to find out what Ms. [redacted] would need to do. Ms. S[redacted]spoke with a woman named [redacted] who stated that she could not locate a check sent tothem by Grange. After following up again with our Accounting Department, Ms. S[redacted]was informed on September 26, 2016 that the check was actually cashed by Mr. [redacted]on July 5, 2016. They were able to secure a copy of the cancelled check. Ms. S[redacted]attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] the same day, but was unable to reach her and had toleave a message. To date, Ms. S[redacted] has not been able to speak with Ms. [redacted] toinform her of our findings.Since the check for damages related to this claim has been cashed by our insured [redacted], we are unable to void and reissue the check to Ms. [redacted].If you have further questions or I can provide any additional information regarding thismatter, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####.Sincerely, ,Jon M[redacted]

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

Grange's representative Mr. Eric F[redacted] completely ignored my prior response because it highlighted Grange's blunder  in fairly valuing my 1998 Camry vehicle.   As I indicated previously and contrary to Mr. F[redacted]'s assertion, Grange never revised the CCC One appraisal report to reflect my three Craigslist ad comparables for 1998 Camry vehicles listed for sale by private individuals.  Accordingly,  they would not be subject to Grange's $659 deduction for dealer condition adjustment that they made to the three dealer vehicles used in report #[redacted].  The Craigslist ad vehicles would only be subject to an adjustment for comparable mileage and would result in adjusted value of approx.  $2400 for my vehicle.  A copy of CCC One appraisal report #[redacted] has been included separately as part of this complaint.  My vehicle was not for sale at the time of the accident and it also was not owned by a dealer at that time.  Accordingly, the dealer condition subtraction of $659 is not applicable to my craigslist comparables for used 1998 Camry vehicles listed for sale by private individuals.  The value of my vehicle is approx. $2400 based on my craigslist comparables adjusted for mileage differences.As I indicated above, I am providing a copy of CCC One appraisal report # [redacted] as evidence that Grange did not utilize my Craigslist comparables of privately-owned vehicles listed for sale in making a good faith appraisal and valuation of my totaled 1998 Camry vehicle.  Thank you for your assistance in this matter.Regards,[redacted]

Thank you for allowing Grange Mutual Casualty Company the opportunity to respond to Mrs. [redacted]'sinquiry.Grange Insurance provided coverage for policy [redacted] through 0411 112017. Mrs. [redacted]'s policycancelled for non-payment of premium. Earned premium is due.The following documents are...

attached:Dec Renewal 02/28/17Cancel Notice 03125117Cancellation 04112117lS1E arned Premium Notice 0411 21172nd Earned Premium Notice 05/02/17Final Eamed Premium Notice 05122117Billing HistoryResponse from [redacted] InsuranceCopy of two letters from [redacted] Insurance sent to Mrs. [redacted]sIf you have further questions, please contact meSincerely,Jim G[redacted]Inside Territory Sales SupervisorPhone: ###-###-####~3184Fax: ###-###-####Email: g[redacted]~rangeinsurance.eomCc: [redacted] Insurance

Thank you for the letter regarding the customer’s dissatisfaction. The customer’s 1998 Honda Shadow motorcycle was damaged by our policyholder in an auto accident and deemed to be a total loss. A market valuation was completed by CCC on the customer’s motorcycle. We explained to the customer that...

Grange Mutual Casualty Company utilize an independent company called [redacted] Claims Services in order establish a fair market value for vehicles that have been deemed a total loss. CCC takes the year, make, and model of the vehicle and searches for those same vehicles that are for sale near the customer’s zip code which are similar in mileage, options, and condition. CCC then takes the comparable vehicles that were found and averages what the sale prices for the comparables are and establishes the average market value. Our market value established by CCC was $3,316.00. We also explained to the customer that he would be eligible for up to $223.83 in sales tax reimbursement if he replaced the vehicle within 30 days as well $19.50 for the title fee. The customer asked about retaining salvage and we explained that there would be a salvage deduction of $696.36 if we were to retain the salvage.The customer advised he did not agree with the value that was presented. We contacted CCC to see if they could expand the search for more comparable motorcycles and they did. CCC was able to locate more comparable motorcycles and they supported the market value that already been established. The customer then submitted more links to comparable motorcycles that he located on Craigslist. We submitted those comparable motorcycles to CCC and two of the comparable motorcycles were added to the evaluation while two of the others that the customer provided were not reflective of the average market as they were in exceptional condition. Again, the additional comparable motorcycles further supported the established market value. Comparable vehicle #6 and comparable vehicle #12 on the attached CCC market valuation report are comparable vehicles that the customer provided. We have advised the customer of our settlement offer for his 1998 Honda Shadow motorcycle and that his signed notarized title is needed before a payment can be issued.We have addressed the customer’s concerns to the best of our ability. We also explained that if he does not agree with the value presented by us that he can file through his own carrier and we would pay his deductible once he provided a copy of his declaration page. I have enclosed all relevant documentation for your review. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at ###-###-####.   Sincerely, Jon M[redacted] AVP Claims Grange Property and Casualty Insurance Company CC:     Ken K[redacted], VP of Claims