Grillo & Associates Inc.

There were two policies involved with the refund situation in regards to the 2004 Toyota being double insured. [redacted]s policy is [redacted] and [redacted] (his mother) policy was [redacted]. The 2004 Toyota was insured on [redacted]’s policy, [redacted]. Nationwide received a request...

from [redacted] to remove the vehicle from [redacted]’s policy effective March **, 2011 as he indicated it was insured on his policy ([redacted]) at that time. The policy was cancelled and a refund of $2,567.35 was mailed. Based on [redacted] explaining the vehicle was covered on both policies, a call was then placed to the [redacted] DMV, who advised the plates expired October **, 2011 for [redacted] and were not transferred to [redacted] until November **, 2011. It was advised that [redacted]’s policy would need to be cancelled October **, 2011, not March **, 2011 to avoid a 228 day lapse suspension and fines from the state. Since [redacted]’s registration expired October **, 2011 and [redacted] received registration November **, 2011, there would be no lapse or fines for not having the vehicle insured during that time. When [redacted] spoke with [redacted] (OCA) in July 2014 regarding the duplicate coverage on the 2004 Toyota, he was advised that the $2,567.35 refund was not correct and would be adjusted and reduced. That refund was for an incorrect cancellation date and to avoid the lapse/suspension the policy was being corrected to reflect an October **, 2011 cancellation date. It was advised to [redacted] that the 2004 Toyota would then be removed from his policy effective the date it was added, March 10, 2011 and added November 25, 2011 when the vehicle was registered to him. He was advised a refund would be sent for his policy being adjusted with the removal of the 2004 Toyota from March 10, 2011 to November 25, 2011. During the OCA discussion with [redacted] in July, it was offered that we could apply the refunds to the current balance on his policy which would pay his renewal in full and then we could refund the remainder of the refund, or we could refund both amounts directly to the member ([redacted]’s adjusted refund and [redacted]s refund for removing the vehicle). [redacted] advised he preferred the refunds be sent to his address as he pays for his insurance via automatic draft. • Nationwide adjusted [redacted]’s policy ([redacted]) to refund for coverage on the 2004 Toyota starting October **, 2011 instead of the March **, 2011 cancellation date. This adjustment caused the $2,567.35 refund to be reduced to a refund of $1,839.40. The cost to insure the 2004 Toyota from March **, 2011 to October **, 2011 was $727.95 so this amount was removed from the initial $2,567.35 refund. The adjusted refund was mailed to [redacted] via [redacted] and was delivered on July **, 2014 (tracking [redacted]). This check was cashed on July **, 2014. • Nationwide adjusted [redacted]s policy ([redacted]) to remove coverage on the vehicle from March **, 2011 to November **, 2011 when the vehicle should have been added to his policy. This system refund generated for $1,368.00 and was mailed via [redacted] and was delivered on July **, 2014 (tracking [redacted]). This check was cashed on July **, 2014. To summarize, the 2004 Toyota reflects being covered on [redacted]’s policy ([redacted]) until October **, 2011 when the registration ended per the [redacted] DMV. The 2004 Toyota reflects being insured on [redacted]s policy ([redacted]) effective November **, 2011 when the vehicle was registered in his name. There is a lapse in the vehicle being insured from October **, 2011 to November **, 2011 when the vehicle was not registered in anyone’s name, which does not result in state fines. [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

Review: was billing me double for an auto insurance policy for 38 months and refused to reimburse me the entire amount. filed a complaint with [redacted] state which the agency lied on their response. this has been going on for over 6 months now and I am not satisfied as they will not refund the amount owed. basically committed wire fraud, but I guess financial institutions are allowed to commit crimes against the public. was billed twice for insurance on the same auto for 38 months and company refused to reimburse the total amountDesired Settlement: refund what was double billed for one car. just to be reimbursed the amount that I was double billed for. I have been a customer of nationwide insurance for 25 years. they should not treat steady customers this way. I have argued with them for over 6 months now and I will go to small claims court to get what is owed me.

Business

Response:

There were two policies involved with the refund situation in regards to the 2004 Toyota being double insured. [redacted]s policy is [redacted] and [redacted] (his mother) policy was [redacted]. The 2004 Toyota was insured on [redacted]’s policy, [redacted]. Nationwide received a request from [redacted] to remove the vehicle from [redacted]’s policy effective March **, 2011 as he indicated it was insured on his policy ([redacted]) at that time. The policy was cancelled and a refund of $2,567.35 was mailed. Based on [redacted] explaining the vehicle was covered on both policies, a call was then placed to the [redacted] DMV, who advised the plates expired October **, 2011 for [redacted] and were not transferred to [redacted] until November **, 2011. It was advised that [redacted]’s policy would need to be cancelled October **, 2011, not March **, 2011 to avoid a 228 day lapse suspension and fines from the state. Since [redacted]’s registration expired October **, 2011 and [redacted] received registration November **, 2011, there would be no lapse or fines for not having the vehicle insured during that time. When [redacted] spoke with [redacted] (OCA) in July 2014 regarding the duplicate coverage on the 2004 Toyota, he was advised that the $2,567.35 refund was not correct and would be adjusted and reduced. That refund was for an incorrect cancellation date and to avoid the lapse/suspension the policy was being corrected to reflect an October **, 2011 cancellation date. It was advised to [redacted] that the 2004 Toyota would then be removed from his policy effective the date it was added, March 10, 2011 and added November 25, 2011 when the vehicle was registered to him. He was advised a refund would be sent for his policy being adjusted with the removal of the 2004 Toyota from March 10, 2011 to November 25, 2011. During the OCA discussion with [redacted] in July, it was offered that we could apply the refunds to the current balance on his policy which would pay his renewal in full and then we could refund the remainder of the refund, or we could refund both amounts directly to the member ([redacted]’s adjusted refund and [redacted]s refund for removing the vehicle). [redacted] advised he preferred the refunds be sent to his address as he pays for his insurance via automatic draft. • Nationwide adjusted [redacted]’s policy ([redacted]) to refund for coverage on the 2004 Toyota starting October **, 2011 instead of the March **, 2011 cancellation date. This adjustment caused the $2,567.35 refund to be reduced to a refund of $1,839.40. The cost to insure the 2004 Toyota from March **, 2011 to October **, 2011 was $727.95 so this amount was removed from the initial $2,567.35 refund. The adjusted refund was mailed to [redacted] via [redacted] and was delivered on July **, 2014 (tracking [redacted]). This check was cashed on July **, 2014. • Nationwide adjusted [redacted]s policy ([redacted]) to remove coverage on the vehicle from March **, 2011 to November **, 2011 when the vehicle should have been added to his policy. This system refund generated for $1,368.00 and was mailed via [redacted] and was delivered on July **, 2014 (tracking [redacted]). This check was cashed on July **, 2014. To summarize, the 2004 Toyota reflects being covered on [redacted]’s policy ([redacted]) until October **, 2011 when the registration ended per the [redacted] DMV. The 2004 Toyota reflects being insured on [redacted]s policy ([redacted]) effective November **, 2011 when the vehicle was registered in his name. There is a lapse in the vehicle being insured from October **, 2011 to November **, 2011 when the vehicle was not registered in anyone’s name, which does not result in state fines. [redacted]