Thank you for your letter of November 14, The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns concerning an accident occurring on October 14, and resulting claim Please note the complainant is the third party claimant claiming damages against our insured The company was made aware of the loss occurring on October 14, by ***, the complainant’s insurance carrier Statements regarding the loss were obtained from both the claimant and our insured; however, there were conflicting statements regarding the facts of loss which required an additional investigation on our part Despite our best efforts we are having difficulty obtaining full cooperation from our insured which has resulted in delays As a result we are handling the loss under a full reservation of rights as additional information from our insured is needed to determine liability The company understands and shares the complainant’s frustration in this matter and appreciates their patience as we work toward completing our investigation Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay Executive Customer Relations
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 6, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is National General Insurance Company, NAIC The claim was reported on April 15, Upon conclusion of the coverage and liability investigations and
determining that Bodily Injury claims were being presented, on May 18, 2017, the Bodily Injury Claims Representative spoke with both the complainant and her boyfriend regarding their injuriesBoth were advised by the BI Claims Representative that they would receive Medical Authorization forms in the mail to complete and return to the companyThe BI Claims Representative was instructed to send both sets of forms to the complainant’s address On June 6, 2017, the complainant’s Medical Authorization form was receivedTo date, the company has not receivedthe form for the complainant’s boyfriend After no additional contact from the complainant or her boyfriend by August 25, 2017, the BI Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail requesting a call backHe advised that if no additional contact was received, the Bodily Injury claim would be closedOn September 21, 2017, the Bodily Injury claim was closed due to lack of contact from the complainantThe BI Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail on December 6, requesting that she get in contact with him in regard to the Bodily Injury claim While the company can understand the complainant’s frustrations with the quality of repairs to her vehicle, she would need to contact the repair facility with her concernsThe facility the complainant utilized is not one of our company’s preferred shops, and as such we cannot guarantee the quality of their workOur company inspected the damages to the claimant’s vehicle, created an estimate (and later a supplement to the original estimate based on information provided by the repair facility) and paid the repair facility based on the estimateThe only mention the claimant made to our company about the repair facility was on May 18, 2017, when she advised the Claims Representative that this was the repair facility where she wanted the repairs completed While company can appreciate the complainant’s concerns around her claim, we must respectfully advise that the situation is being handled appropriatelyBecause the complainant chose a repair facility not preferred by the company, the company cannot speak to the quality of the work doneThe company has taken steps to contact the claimant to further assist her with her Bodily Injury claim, and we await her return callTell us why here
October 9, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: National General Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of September 25, 2017, received by the company on October 3, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding our handling of his claim for a loss to his Recreational Vehicle (RV) occurring on or about August 2, The claimant reported his claim to the company on August 21, 2017. Upon our initial review there appeared to be unrelated prior damages to our insured’s RV. We questioned when the damages occurred, discussed the same with the complainant and his shop of choice, and sent an Independent Adjuster from RVEST to inspect the complainant’s RV. The company received RVEST’s inspection report on September 14, 2017, which confirmed that while Mr*** motorhome is an older unit, the damage reported is not old, and is consistent with the loss as reported We contacted the complainant on September 15, 2017, and informed him that settlement in the amount of $2,500.00, which represents the repair estimate of $3,less his $deductible, will be issued to him and his shop of choice within the next few days. Payment was issued to the complainant’s shop of choice on September 18, 2017, and we consider this matter resolved Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12600957, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Vivian ***
November 7, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding reimbursement for her out of pocket expense for a rental vehicle The company remitted Property Damage settlement payments totaling $4,to the complainant and/or her body shop of choice on July 13, and July 31, 2017, respectively. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 2017, the company received a copy of a paid invoice in the amount of $from the complainant for her out-of-pocket rental expenses. Please be advised the company is unable to remit payment of $to the complainant because our insured had a Property Damage limit of $5,at the time of loss. An additional payment of $would result in an overall Property Damage settlement of $5,which exceeds the $5,limit on our insured’s policy. Our records indicate several attempts were made to reach the complainant via phone, and the last letter dated October 5, 2017, was mailed proposing a settlement offer of $advising that an agreement to our offer was needed in order for us to send a formal release due to the excess exposure on our insured’s Property Damage policy limit The company does not have record of receiving a response, and upon our receipt of your correspondence we reached out to the complainant to resolve the matter. The complainant advised that she did not receive our correspondence, and we requested verification of her address. Unfortunately, the complainant declined to verify her address, and she disconnected the call Without acceptance of our proposed loss of use settlement offer of $255.75, the company is unable to mail a release and remit payment to the complainant Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
November 30, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of November 20, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding the replacement of the windshield on her Recreational Vehicle (RV) from a loss occurring on or about August 14, Earlier this month the company became aware that the complainant’s shop of choice replaced the windshield on her RV without replacing the worn seals. Our records indicate several discussions have taken place with the complainant’s shop of choice related to the condition of the seals, which contradicted the complainant’s contention that the seals were damaged from the loss The company has agreed to provide coverage for the replacement of the seals and we are currently working with the complainant’s shop to conclude this matter. We have contacted the complainant, and reviewed our suggested resolution with assurances that if any additional damage is found by the shop they would contact us immediately to determine if further inspection is needed Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance Tell us why here
On December 8, 2017, the complainant opened a claim as her vehicle had hit a tree while she was driving in icy conditions. After we completed a repair estimate, payment was mailed in the name of the complainant and her repair facility for complete repair of her vehicle on December 11,
2017. Although the complainant notes the icy conditions caused her to lose control of the insured vehicle and resulted in the reported damages, the complainant was found to be at-fault as she had failed to maintain control of the insured vehicle On March 5, 2018, a renewal offer for the term dates of April 10, through April 10, was mailed to the complainantIncluded with the renewal offer was a payment schedule for the upcoming term, as well as the company’s rating information for the complainant’s stateThis same rating information has been included with the new business documents and each renewal packet mailed to the complainantThe rating information stated that a five-point charge would be assessed for an at fault accident occurring less than or equal to months prior to the date of application or preparation of renewal Despite not receiving a ticket in relation to the reported loss, the renewal accurately rated for the accident as it reported to our company and the Insured was found to be at-faultTell us why here
RE: ID *** Claim Number: *** Policy Number: *** Underwritten by: New South Insurance Company, NAIC This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 5, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is New South Insurance Company, NAIC
On November 6, 2017, our insured called and reported that he had been involved in an accident with the complainantHe advised that as he was exiting the parking lot, a vehicle approached quickly on his right and turned in front of him to get closer to the buildingHe advised he “tapped” the rear end of the complainant’s vehicle On November 7, 2017, the Claims Representative mailed the complainant a contact letter On November 9, 2017, the Claims Representative was able to find a phone number for the complainantThe Claims Representative attempted to call the complainant and left a voicemail requesting a call back to discuss the details of the lossLater that day, the complainant returned the callThe complainant advised that our insured was parked illegally across several parking spaces but that there were open spaces in front of the insured’s vehicleThe complainant advised that as she was navigating around the insured’s vehicle, the insured pulled out and struck her vehicle On November 10, 2017, the complainant called back to advise the Claims Representative she had requested a copy of the parking lot surveillance videoThat same day, the Claims Representative left our insured a voicemail requesting a call back On November 13, 2017, the complainant’s vehicle was inspected by a Field Claims Representative, and a repair estimate was createdThat same day, the Claims Representative spoke to our insured and confirmed that he was parked against the curb rather than in a parking spotHe advised that after checking his mirrors, he began to pull away from the curbHe advised that the complainant’s vehicle “came out of nowhere” and pulled in front of his vehicle, leaving him no time to stop On November 16, 2017, the police report was received, but there is no fault determination listedWithout a fault indicator, the facts of loss come down to the conflicting accounts from the involved partiesBecause of this, the company is awaiting the surveillance footage that the complainant advised she had requested back on November 10, to validate the facts of lossThe complainant’s insurance company was advised of this when they called on November 29, While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustrations with the perceived delay in claim handling, we respectfully advise that, in instances of conflicting accounts, it is necessary to verify the facts of lossOnce the video is received from the complainant and fault for the accident can be determined, indemnification will be determined if owed or notTell us why here
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because: 1) There was no option to pay for the new policy online as the website showed a remaining balance of $I've tried to bring this to their attention before to no availNormally this wouldn't be an issue as I can just call, but I had to mail my smartphone back to the manufacturer for repairs.I'm not blaming them for the personal matter with the phone, but it doesn't change the fact that NGI is in error about a payment option being "immediately available" after 10/26/This is simply untrue 2) Though I am signed up for email reminders and notifications I received no remindersA simple automated email before the policy's cancellation, or a notification that they received my electronically signed documents would have sufficed I will concede that NGI did perform the legally required bare minimum in regards to serviceHowever, it is clear that their business model is one that intentionally generates as many additional fees as possibleI would love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there is no other reason for intentionally not reminding customers of impending cancellation before a fee is generated rather than three days afterThis also helps explain their $fee for being even an hour late on a payment, a practice I've never encountered with other insurance providers. It is my intention to warn as many customers as possible about NGI's deceptive practices and take my business elsewhereI hope that the Revdex.com will assist me in this goal by making my complaint publicThank you
Regards,
Zach ***
I am rejecting this response because: I have still not been contacted by an adjuster. Yes, he called. And yes, I have received a claim number after calling and harassing their company until I spoke with Monica who took the time to actually take and enter the claim. But that does not negate the fact that their adjuster has yet to make contact and begin the process to repair my vehicle. He assured me on Tuesday that an adjuster would contact me in hours. Nothing. I would think that since it was their fault that the original claim was never input they would try to expedite the handling of this matter. It has now been a week and a half since initially contacting them. Even with the holidays, that's six (6) working days that they could have used to assist their customer. I pay my premiums timely. I expect my claims to be handled just as timely
Regards,
*** ***
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the complainant, *** ***, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.Ms***'s loss was reported to the company on 04/02/for hail damages sustained to her residence on
03/23/2016. The initial payment on her claim was issued on 05/02/for the damages sustained to her dwelling and other structures. Supplemental payments were issued on 06/02/that included personal property as well.Part of Ms***'s dwelling payment did include carpeting. As per the policy, wall to wall carpeting is covered but only to those rooms having damage and only those areas that are deemed continuous without a door between the applicable rooms. This was explained to Ms***. This is industry standard. Additionally, there was a follow up inspection performed after the initial payments were issued. As a result, additional payments (as noted above) were issued.Each of the inspections performed were done in the presence of Ms*** and her contractor, and it is noted on the inspection report that the scope of damage included was agreed upon.We feel that Ms***'s claim has been handled and settled in a fair and timely manner
December 7, 2017 Melissa NealThe Revdex.com serving Northwest North CarolinaS Marshall St, Suite 1Winston Salem, NC 27101 RE: Case #: 12512008 Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC 29742 Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of December 4, 2017. The company has no record of a partial denial on the subject claim. We maintain that we have worked with the complainant’s shop to conclude this matter, and have assured the complainant that if any additional damage is found by the shop they would contact us immediately to determine if further inspection is needed Our records indicate a supplemental estimate was received from the shop, no further inspections were needed, and an additional payment for the replacement of the seals was issued to the complainant on December 5, 2017. Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely,T***Executive Customer RelationsNational General Insurance
December 28, Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina Brookstown Avenue, Suite Winston Salem, NC Attn: Melissa Neal RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID:
Claim Number: *** Date of Loss: November 26, Company: Integon National Insurance Company NAIC: Dear MsNeal, We are in receipt of your correspondence dated December 21, 2017, transmitting the above-referenced inquiryThe company appreciates the opportunity to respondPlease note the correct underwriting company for the above referenced Private Passenger Automobile policy is Integon National Insurance Company, NAIC Our records indicate the consumer called the company on December 21, 2017, requesting a status of the claimUnfortunately, the Total Loss Claims Representative, Melissa ***, was unexpectedly out of the officeMs***’s Supervisor, MrMatt ***, contacted the consumer before the end of the business day on December 21, 2017, and advised the consumer of the total loss offerAs of the writing of this response, the consumer has not contacted the company to advise whether she would like to retain her vehicle or sign the vehicle over to the company Thank you again for allowing us to address this issue. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly at *** *** ** *** or *** should you have questions or require additional information Very Truly Yours, Michelle *** Executive Customer Relations Specialist National General Group of Companies *** Tell us why here
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
The insurance company denied the initial estimate which included a new gasket in September 2017, the insurance company has not had several discussions with the body shop regarding the condition of the gasket/seal prior to the work being doneWhen the body shop took the gorilla tape off on October 26, 2017, it was discovered then that the seal was damaged and the body shop did not contact the insurance company for it being damaged and went ahead and reused the damaged gasketI’m not sure why the adjuster or body shop prior to writing the estimate would not take the gorilla tape off and inspect it thoroughly before rejecting the initial estimate which included a new gasketI am aware that it is very common to reuse a seal/gasket as long as it is not damagedMy seal is completely split obviously from the windshield being hit from the tire and popping out the windshield from the top as well as putting a inch crack in itI have submitted pictures prior to the impact showing what the seal around the windshield looked like and there is no split in the gasket, also, I have submitted pictures after the impact with the gorilla tape on which does not allow vision of the split gasket because of the tape covering it and I have submitted pictures after the windshield was installed, clearly showing the gasket split at the top where the tape was covering itIf the Revdex.com would like to see all these pictures please let me know, I will gladly provide them to show there is nothing contradictory to what I have said
Regards,
Lana ***
April 6, 2017 The Revdex.com of Northwest North CarolinaBrookstown Avenue, Suite 304Winston, Salem, NC 27101 Attention: *** *** RE: Revdex.com ID:
12004326 Date of Auto Accident: January 21, 2017 Dear MsDiaz: Thank you for your letter of March 30, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns related to the handling of his collision claim. The company initially estimated the cost to repair the complainant’s vehicle at $2,688.24. Payment of $2,188.24, less the $deductible, was mailed to the complainant on January 25, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the complainant advised he would be taking his vehicle to a shop of his choice on February 20, 2017, to begin repairs, and would need to utilize a rental vehicle at that time. The company authorized a rental vehicle for the complainant which he took possession of on February 21, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the company was informed that the complainant’s vehicle may be a total loss and extended the rental authorization accordingly. The company re-inspected the complainant’s vehicle the same day with the body shop estimator and manager, and did not find the vehicle to be a total loss. On March 6, the shop requested another copy of our estimate which was provided to them the same day via email. Our records indicate we attempted to follow up with the complainant’s shop on March 7, 2017; March 9, 2017; March 14, 2017; March 17, 2017; and March 20, 2017. The shop returned our call on March 20, 2017, advising they expected repairs to be completed within the week. We stressed urgency in completing repairs as the maximum days allowed for rental usage would be reached on March 22, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the shop informed the company of supplemental damage and we were able to inspect the same that day. The company agreed to a supplemental cost of repair at $with two additional hours of labor. Payment was issued to the shop the same day. No further contact was received until the complainant contacted the company on March 29, 2017, and expressed his concerns with the handling of his claim. The complainant advised his shop informed him that they had not spoken with our company since February and that his vehicle was not repairable, a total loss. The company finds the information relayed by the shop to the complainant to be unfounded and we promptly reached out to the shop to discuss the same, with no response. On March 30, 2017, the company received an email from the shop requesting another supplemental payment and payment of $was issued to the shop the following day. The company contacted the complainant and informed him of the same and discussed the extension of the rental vehicle. It is the company’s position that excessive delays with repair did not result from any action, or inaction, on our part and the time taken for repairs by the shop should have been considerably less than one month. Furthermore, the insured’s Rental Reimbursement on his policy has a limit of $per day/$maximum which was reached and we are unable to honor the complainant’s request for further extensions. The company recommended the complainant discuss the delays with his shop and obtain a guaranteed completion date to ensure any remaining repairs are done in a timely manner Thank you again for allowing the company to respondShould the complainant wish to discuss the matter further he may contact the claim representative assigned to his file.Sincerely,TRayExecutive Customer Relations National General Insurance
Tell us why hereOn January 1, 2018, the complainant filed a claim through the company’s online portal, wherein she advised she allowed a friend to borrow her car on December 30, She advised that due to inclement weather, the vehicle spun out during an attempted lane change, striking the
guardrail and another vehicle that left the scene. On January 3, 2018, the Claims Representative spoke to the complainant’s friend who had been operating the vehicle at the time of the accident for additional detailsThe Claims Representative also contacted the complainant that same day to confirm which repair facility the complainant would be utilizingThe complainant advised that she would be calling the repair facility the following day to have them send photos and a repair estimate to the Claims Representative. On January 22, 2018, the complainant advised the Claims Representative that the repair facility refused to write an estimate or provide photos of the damage to her vehicleShe further stated that the repair facility was difficult to get in contact with and would not return her callsHowever, she mentioned that the repair facility indicated approximately $7,worth of damage had been done to her vehicleAfter taking the year, make and model of the complainant’s vehicle into consideration, the Claims Representative felt the vehicle was most likely a total lossThe Claims Representative advised the complainant to remove the plates and her personal belongings from the vehicle, and asked the complainant to release the vehicle to Copart. On February 7, 2018, the Claims Representative called the complainant and left a voicemail advising that a Field Claims Representative had been assigned to evaluate the damages to the vehicle. On February 8, 2018, an inspection of the complainant’s vehicle was completed, and photos were received by the companyAn estimate was completed and a copy was mailed to the complainant. The claim was reassigned to our Total Loss UnitOn February 14, 2018, the Total Loss Specialist contacted the complainant and reviewed the total loss offerThe complainant accepted the offer, and the Total Loss Specialist reviewed the steps for signing her vehicle title over to the company. On February 15, 2018, the Total Loss Specialist contacted the complainant’s lienholder and reviewed the total loss settlement offer with them While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustration with the perceived delays in her claim, we respectfully advise that the majority of time lost was due to lack of communication from her selected repair facilityOnce the complainant advised the Claims Representative of the lack of cooperation from the repair facility, Copart was assigned to pick up the vehicle, the inspection was completed, and an estimate was createdAt this time the company is waiting for the letter of guarantee from the complainant’s lienholder and the original title from the complainant
The complaint filed by *** ** *** is hereby acknowledged as received. I, too, had a little bit of a difficult time finding Ms***'s claim; so, I called her to ask a few questions, which assisted me in locating her claim. In doing so, she advised that she did speak with a
representative of our company yesterday (12/28), who provided her with a claim number and the name of her assigned adjuster. She was further advised that an appraiser would make contact with her within hours to set up an inspection of the damaged vehicle.Some of the confusion resulted from the wrong company name being provided in her complaint. In order to ensure proper identification, here are the following specifics related to this claim:Insured Name: *** ** *** (husband of ***)Name of Insurance Company: National Automotive Insurance CompanyPolicy No***Claim No***I expect this claim will proceed according to our processes and procedures from this point forward.Scott ** ***Manager, Regulatory [email protected]
Thank you for your correspondence of May 25, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to our insured’s concerns.When investigating the damage on an insured vehicle the company has to determine the cause of loss and applicable coverage. Our insured reported a vandalism
loss; however, it is the company’s position that the damages to our insured’s vehicle resulted from more than one incident and were not consistent with a vandalism loss as reported. As a result the company has denied our insured’s claim. The company understands this is not the outcome our insured desires; however, our position in this matter remains unchangedThank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely,TRayExecutive Customer RelationsNational General Insurance
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12062140, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Donna Dobell
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12597626, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Leandra ***
Thank you for your letter of November 14, The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns concerning an accident occurring on October 14, and resulting claim Please note the complainant is the third party claimant claiming damages against our insured The company was made aware of the loss occurring on October 14, by ***, the complainant’s insurance carrier Statements regarding the loss were obtained from both the claimant and our insured; however, there were conflicting statements regarding the facts of loss which required an additional investigation on our part Despite our best efforts we are having difficulty obtaining full cooperation from our insured which has resulted in delays As a result we are handling the loss under a full reservation of rights as additional information from our insured is needed to determine liability The company understands and shares the complainant’s frustration in this matter and appreciates their patience as we work toward completing our investigation Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay Executive Customer Relations
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 6, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is National General Insurance Company, NAIC The claim was reported on April 15, Upon conclusion of the coverage and liability investigations and
determining that Bodily Injury claims were being presented, on May 18, 2017, the Bodily Injury Claims Representative spoke with both the complainant and her boyfriend regarding their injuriesBoth were advised by the BI Claims Representative that they would receive Medical Authorization forms in the mail to complete and return to the companyThe BI Claims Representative was instructed to send both sets of forms to the complainant’s address On June 6, 2017, the complainant’s Medical Authorization form was receivedTo date, the company has not receivedthe form for the complainant’s boyfriend After no additional contact from the complainant or her boyfriend by August 25, 2017, the BI Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail requesting a call backHe advised that if no additional contact was received, the Bodily Injury claim would be closedOn September 21, 2017, the Bodily Injury claim was closed due to lack of contact from the complainantThe BI Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail on December 6, requesting that she get in contact with him in regard to the Bodily Injury claim While the company can understand the complainant’s frustrations with the quality of repairs to her vehicle, she would need to contact the repair facility with her concernsThe facility the complainant utilized is not one of our company’s preferred shops, and as such we cannot guarantee the quality of their workOur company inspected the damages to the claimant’s vehicle, created an estimate (and later a supplement to the original estimate based on information provided by the repair facility) and paid the repair facility based on the estimateThe only mention the claimant made to our company about the repair facility was on May 18, 2017, when she advised the Claims Representative that this was the repair facility where she wanted the repairs completed While company can appreciate the complainant’s concerns around her claim, we must respectfully advise that the situation is being handled appropriatelyBecause the complainant chose a repair facility not preferred by the company, the company cannot speak to the quality of the work doneThe company has taken steps to contact the claimant to further assist her with her Bodily Injury claim, and we await her return callTell us why here
October 9, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: National General Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of September 25, 2017, received by the company on October 3, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding our handling of his claim for a loss to his Recreational Vehicle (RV) occurring on or about August 2, The claimant reported his claim to the company on August 21, 2017. Upon our initial review there appeared to be unrelated prior damages to our insured’s RV. We questioned when the damages occurred, discussed the same with the complainant and his shop of choice, and sent an Independent Adjuster from RVEST to inspect the complainant’s RV. The company received RVEST’s inspection report on September 14, 2017, which confirmed that while Mr*** motorhome is an older unit, the damage reported is not old, and is consistent with the loss as reported We contacted the complainant on September 15, 2017, and informed him that settlement in the amount of $2,500.00, which represents the repair estimate of $3,less his $deductible, will be issued to him and his shop of choice within the next few days. Payment was issued to the complainant’s shop of choice on September 18, 2017, and we consider this matter resolved Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12600957, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Vivian ***
November 7, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding reimbursement for her out of pocket expense for a rental vehicle The company remitted Property Damage settlement payments totaling $4,to the complainant and/or her body shop of choice on July 13, and July 31, 2017, respectively. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 2017, the company received a copy of a paid invoice in the amount of $from the complainant for her out-of-pocket rental expenses. Please be advised the company is unable to remit payment of $to the complainant because our insured had a Property Damage limit of $5,at the time of loss. An additional payment of $would result in an overall Property Damage settlement of $5,which exceeds the $5,limit on our insured’s policy. Our records indicate several attempts were made to reach the complainant via phone, and the last letter dated October 5, 2017, was mailed proposing a settlement offer of $advising that an agreement to our offer was needed in order for us to send a formal release due to the excess exposure on our insured’s Property Damage policy limit The company does not have record of receiving a response, and upon our receipt of your correspondence we reached out to the complainant to resolve the matter. The complainant advised that she did not receive our correspondence, and we requested verification of her address. Unfortunately, the complainant declined to verify her address, and she disconnected the call Without acceptance of our proposed loss of use settlement offer of $255.75, the company is unable to mail a release and remit payment to the complainant Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
November 30, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of November 20, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding the replacement of the windshield on her Recreational Vehicle (RV) from a loss occurring on or about August 14, Earlier this month the company became aware that the complainant’s shop of choice replaced the windshield on her RV without replacing the worn seals. Our records indicate several discussions have taken place with the complainant’s shop of choice related to the condition of the seals, which contradicted the complainant’s contention that the seals were damaged from the loss The company has agreed to provide coverage for the replacement of the seals and we are currently working with the complainant’s shop to conclude this matter. We have contacted the complainant, and reviewed our suggested resolution with assurances that if any additional damage is found by the shop they would contact us immediately to determine if further inspection is needed Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance Tell us why here
On December 8, 2017, the complainant opened a claim as her vehicle had hit a tree while she was driving in icy conditions. After we completed a repair estimate, payment was mailed in the name of the complainant and her repair facility for complete repair of her vehicle on December 11,
2017. Although the complainant notes the icy conditions caused her to lose control of the insured vehicle and resulted in the reported damages, the complainant was found to be at-fault as she had failed to maintain control of the insured vehicle On March 5, 2018, a renewal offer for the term dates of April 10, through April 10, was mailed to the complainantIncluded with the renewal offer was a payment schedule for the upcoming term, as well as the company’s rating information for the complainant’s stateThis same rating information has been included with the new business documents and each renewal packet mailed to the complainantThe rating information stated that a five-point charge would be assessed for an at fault accident occurring less than or equal to months prior to the date of application or preparation of renewal Despite not receiving a ticket in relation to the reported loss, the renewal accurately rated for the accident as it reported to our company and the Insured was found to be at-faultTell us why here
RE: ID *** Claim Number: *** Policy Number: *** Underwritten by: New South Insurance Company, NAIC This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 5, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is New South Insurance Company, NAIC
On November 6, 2017, our insured called and reported that he had been involved in an accident with the complainantHe advised that as he was exiting the parking lot, a vehicle approached quickly on his right and turned in front of him to get closer to the buildingHe advised he “tapped” the rear end of the complainant’s vehicle On November 7, 2017, the Claims Representative mailed the complainant a contact letter On November 9, 2017, the Claims Representative was able to find a phone number for the complainantThe Claims Representative attempted to call the complainant and left a voicemail requesting a call back to discuss the details of the lossLater that day, the complainant returned the callThe complainant advised that our insured was parked illegally across several parking spaces but that there were open spaces in front of the insured’s vehicleThe complainant advised that as she was navigating around the insured’s vehicle, the insured pulled out and struck her vehicle On November 10, 2017, the complainant called back to advise the Claims Representative she had requested a copy of the parking lot surveillance videoThat same day, the Claims Representative left our insured a voicemail requesting a call back On November 13, 2017, the complainant’s vehicle was inspected by a Field Claims Representative, and a repair estimate was createdThat same day, the Claims Representative spoke to our insured and confirmed that he was parked against the curb rather than in a parking spotHe advised that after checking his mirrors, he began to pull away from the curbHe advised that the complainant’s vehicle “came out of nowhere” and pulled in front of his vehicle, leaving him no time to stop On November 16, 2017, the police report was received, but there is no fault determination listedWithout a fault indicator, the facts of loss come down to the conflicting accounts from the involved partiesBecause of this, the company is awaiting the surveillance footage that the complainant advised she had requested back on November 10, to validate the facts of lossThe complainant’s insurance company was advised of this when they called on November 29, While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustrations with the perceived delay in claim handling, we respectfully advise that, in instances of conflicting accounts, it is necessary to verify the facts of lossOnce the video is received from the complainant and fault for the accident can be determined, indemnification will be determined if owed or notTell us why here
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because: 1) There was no option to pay for the new policy online as the website showed a remaining balance of $I've tried to bring this to their attention before to no availNormally this wouldn't be an issue as I can just call, but I had to mail my smartphone back to the manufacturer for repairs.I'm not blaming them for the personal matter with the phone, but it doesn't change the fact that NGI is in error about a payment option being "immediately available" after 10/26/This is simply untrue 2) Though I am signed up for email reminders and notifications I received no remindersA simple automated email before the policy's cancellation, or a notification that they received my electronically signed documents would have sufficed I will concede that NGI did perform the legally required bare minimum in regards to serviceHowever, it is clear that their business model is one that intentionally generates as many additional fees as possibleI would love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there is no other reason for intentionally not reminding customers of impending cancellation before a fee is generated rather than three days afterThis also helps explain their $fee for being even an hour late on a payment, a practice I've never encountered with other insurance providers. It is my intention to warn as many customers as possible about NGI's deceptive practices and take my business elsewhereI hope that the Revdex.com will assist me in this goal by making my complaint publicThank you
Regards,
Zach ***
I am rejecting this response because: I have still not been contacted by an adjuster. Yes, he called. And yes, I have received a claim number after calling and harassing their company until I spoke with Monica who took the time to actually take and enter the claim. But that does not negate the fact that their adjuster has yet to make contact and begin the process to repair my vehicle. He assured me on Tuesday that an adjuster would contact me in hours. Nothing. I would think that since it was their fault that the original claim was never input they would try to expedite the handling of this matter. It has now been a week and a half since initially contacting them. Even with the holidays, that's six (6) working days that they could have used to assist their customer. I pay my premiums timely. I expect my claims to be handled just as timely
Regards,
*** ***
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the complainant, *** ***, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.Ms***'s loss was reported to the company on 04/02/for hail damages sustained to her residence on
03/23/2016. The initial payment on her claim was issued on 05/02/for the damages sustained to her dwelling and other structures. Supplemental payments were issued on 06/02/that included personal property as well.Part of Ms***'s dwelling payment did include carpeting. As per the policy, wall to wall carpeting is covered but only to those rooms having damage and only those areas that are deemed continuous without a door between the applicable rooms. This was explained to Ms***. This is industry standard. Additionally, there was a follow up inspection performed after the initial payments were issued. As a result, additional payments (as noted above) were issued.Each of the inspections performed were done in the presence of Ms*** and her contractor, and it is noted on the inspection report that the scope of damage included was agreed upon.We feel that Ms***'s claim has been handled and settled in a fair and timely manner
December 7, 2017 Melissa NealThe Revdex.com serving Northwest North CarolinaS Marshall St, Suite 1Winston Salem, NC 27101 RE: Case #: 12512008 Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC 29742 Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of December 4, 2017. The company has no record of a partial denial on the subject claim. We maintain that we have worked with the complainant’s shop to conclude this matter, and have assured the complainant that if any additional damage is found by the shop they would contact us immediately to determine if further inspection is needed Our records indicate a supplemental estimate was received from the shop, no further inspections were needed, and an additional payment for the replacement of the seals was issued to the complainant on December 5, 2017. Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely,T***Executive Customer RelationsNational General Insurance
December 28, Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina Brookstown Avenue, Suite Winston Salem, NC Attn: Melissa Neal RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID:
Claim Number: *** Date of Loss: November 26, Company: Integon National Insurance Company NAIC: Dear MsNeal, We are in receipt of your correspondence dated December 21, 2017, transmitting the above-referenced inquiryThe company appreciates the opportunity to respondPlease note the correct underwriting company for the above referenced Private Passenger Automobile policy is Integon National Insurance Company, NAIC Our records indicate the consumer called the company on December 21, 2017, requesting a status of the claimUnfortunately, the Total Loss Claims Representative, Melissa ***, was unexpectedly out of the officeMs***’s Supervisor, MrMatt ***, contacted the consumer before the end of the business day on December 21, 2017, and advised the consumer of the total loss offerAs of the writing of this response, the consumer has not contacted the company to advise whether she would like to retain her vehicle or sign the vehicle over to the company Thank you again for allowing us to address this issue. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly at *** *** ** *** or *** should you have questions or require additional information Very Truly Yours, Michelle *** Executive Customer Relations Specialist National General Group of Companies *** Tell us why here
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
The insurance company denied the initial estimate which included a new gasket in September 2017, the insurance company has not had several discussions with the body shop regarding the condition of the gasket/seal prior to the work being doneWhen the body shop took the gorilla tape off on October 26, 2017, it was discovered then that the seal was damaged and the body shop did not contact the insurance company for it being damaged and went ahead and reused the damaged gasketI’m not sure why the adjuster or body shop prior to writing the estimate would not take the gorilla tape off and inspect it thoroughly before rejecting the initial estimate which included a new gasketI am aware that it is very common to reuse a seal/gasket as long as it is not damagedMy seal is completely split obviously from the windshield being hit from the tire and popping out the windshield from the top as well as putting a inch crack in itI have submitted pictures prior to the impact showing what the seal around the windshield looked like and there is no split in the gasket, also, I have submitted pictures after the impact with the gorilla tape on which does not allow vision of the split gasket because of the tape covering it and I have submitted pictures after the windshield was installed, clearly showing the gasket split at the top where the tape was covering itIf the Revdex.com would like to see all these pictures please let me know, I will gladly provide them to show there is nothing contradictory to what I have said
Regards,
Lana ***
April 6, 2017 The Revdex.com of Northwest North CarolinaBrookstown Avenue, Suite 304Winston, Salem, NC 27101 Attention: *** *** RE: Revdex.com ID:
12004326 Date of Auto Accident: January 21, 2017 Dear MsDiaz: Thank you for your letter of March 30, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns related to the handling of his collision claim. The company initially estimated the cost to repair the complainant’s vehicle at $2,688.24. Payment of $2,188.24, less the $deductible, was mailed to the complainant on January 25, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the complainant advised he would be taking his vehicle to a shop of his choice on February 20, 2017, to begin repairs, and would need to utilize a rental vehicle at that time. The company authorized a rental vehicle for the complainant which he took possession of on February 21, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the company was informed that the complainant’s vehicle may be a total loss and extended the rental authorization accordingly. The company re-inspected the complainant’s vehicle the same day with the body shop estimator and manager, and did not find the vehicle to be a total loss. On March 6, the shop requested another copy of our estimate which was provided to them the same day via email. Our records indicate we attempted to follow up with the complainant’s shop on March 7, 2017; March 9, 2017; March 14, 2017; March 17, 2017; and March 20, 2017. The shop returned our call on March 20, 2017, advising they expected repairs to be completed within the week. We stressed urgency in completing repairs as the maximum days allowed for rental usage would be reached on March 22, 2017. On March 22, 2017, the shop informed the company of supplemental damage and we were able to inspect the same that day. The company agreed to a supplemental cost of repair at $with two additional hours of labor. Payment was issued to the shop the same day. No further contact was received until the complainant contacted the company on March 29, 2017, and expressed his concerns with the handling of his claim. The complainant advised his shop informed him that they had not spoken with our company since February and that his vehicle was not repairable, a total loss. The company finds the information relayed by the shop to the complainant to be unfounded and we promptly reached out to the shop to discuss the same, with no response. On March 30, 2017, the company received an email from the shop requesting another supplemental payment and payment of $was issued to the shop the following day. The company contacted the complainant and informed him of the same and discussed the extension of the rental vehicle. It is the company’s position that excessive delays with repair did not result from any action, or inaction, on our part and the time taken for repairs by the shop should have been considerably less than one month. Furthermore, the insured’s Rental Reimbursement on his policy has a limit of $per day/$maximum which was reached and we are unable to honor the complainant’s request for further extensions. The company recommended the complainant discuss the delays with his shop and obtain a guaranteed completion date to ensure any remaining repairs are done in a timely manner Thank you again for allowing the company to respondShould the complainant wish to discuss the matter further he may contact the claim representative assigned to his file.Sincerely,TRayExecutive Customer Relations National General Insurance
Tell us why hereOn January 1, 2018, the complainant filed a claim through the company’s online portal, wherein she advised she allowed a friend to borrow her car on December 30, She advised that due to inclement weather, the vehicle spun out during an attempted lane change, striking the
guardrail and another vehicle that left the scene. On January 3, 2018, the Claims Representative spoke to the complainant’s friend who had been operating the vehicle at the time of the accident for additional detailsThe Claims Representative also contacted the complainant that same day to confirm which repair facility the complainant would be utilizingThe complainant advised that she would be calling the repair facility the following day to have them send photos and a repair estimate to the Claims Representative. On January 22, 2018, the complainant advised the Claims Representative that the repair facility refused to write an estimate or provide photos of the damage to her vehicleShe further stated that the repair facility was difficult to get in contact with and would not return her callsHowever, she mentioned that the repair facility indicated approximately $7,worth of damage had been done to her vehicleAfter taking the year, make and model of the complainant’s vehicle into consideration, the Claims Representative felt the vehicle was most likely a total lossThe Claims Representative advised the complainant to remove the plates and her personal belongings from the vehicle, and asked the complainant to release the vehicle to Copart. On February 7, 2018, the Claims Representative called the complainant and left a voicemail advising that a Field Claims Representative had been assigned to evaluate the damages to the vehicle. On February 8, 2018, an inspection of the complainant’s vehicle was completed, and photos were received by the companyAn estimate was completed and a copy was mailed to the complainant. The claim was reassigned to our Total Loss UnitOn February 14, 2018, the Total Loss Specialist contacted the complainant and reviewed the total loss offerThe complainant accepted the offer, and the Total Loss Specialist reviewed the steps for signing her vehicle title over to the company. On February 15, 2018, the Total Loss Specialist contacted the complainant’s lienholder and reviewed the total loss settlement offer with them While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustration with the perceived delays in her claim, we respectfully advise that the majority of time lost was due to lack of communication from her selected repair facilityOnce the complainant advised the Claims Representative of the lack of cooperation from the repair facility, Copart was assigned to pick up the vehicle, the inspection was completed, and an estimate was createdAt this time the company is waiting for the letter of guarantee from the complainant’s lienholder and the original title from the complainant
The complaint filed by *** ** *** is hereby acknowledged as received. I, too, had a little bit of a difficult time finding Ms***'s claim; so, I called her to ask a few questions, which assisted me in locating her claim. In doing so, she advised that she did speak with a
representative of our company yesterday (12/28), who provided her with a claim number and the name of her assigned adjuster. She was further advised that an appraiser would make contact with her within hours to set up an inspection of the damaged vehicle.Some of the confusion resulted from the wrong company name being provided in her complaint. In order to ensure proper identification, here are the following specifics related to this claim:Insured Name: *** ** *** (husband of ***)Name of Insurance Company: National Automotive Insurance CompanyPolicy No***Claim No***I expect this claim will proceed according to our processes and procedures from this point forward.Scott ** ***Manager, Regulatory [email protected]
Thank you for your correspondence of May 25, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to our insured’s concerns.When investigating the damage on an insured vehicle the company has to determine the cause of loss and applicable coverage. Our insured reported a vandalism
loss; however, it is the company’s position that the damages to our insured’s vehicle resulted from more than one incident and were not consistent with a vandalism loss as reported. As a result the company has denied our insured’s claim. The company understands this is not the outcome our insured desires; however, our position in this matter remains unchangedThank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely,TRayExecutive Customer RelationsNational General Insurance
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12062140, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Donna Dobell
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12597626, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
Leandra ***