Thank you for your correspondence of August 2, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the claimant’s concernsA claim was filed with our company whereas our insured backed into her niece’s vehicle on July 15, 2016. The company was able to obtain the claimant’s
statement of loss on July 18, 2016. Our records indicate we followed up with the shop assigned to repair the claimant’s vehicle, one of the company’s direct repair facilities, on several occasions regarding our assignment of loss and our request for an estimate of repair and photosUnfortunately there were technical difficulties in assigning the loss to, and receiving an estimate and photos from, our direct repair facility. Ultimately this was able to be corrected and payment for repair was issued to the claimant on August 4, 2016. The company apologizes for the delayThank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay
[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 12434408, and find that this resolution
is satisfactory to me. Good Evening, Michelle McGregor contacted me directly, and resolved my complaintPlease close this complaint file and notify National General that I have accepted their response. Thank You,Jamond *** *** ***
Regards,
Jamond ***
At this time, Ms***'s claim remains pending and is under further investigation due to the nature of her loss. Her claim has been referred to our SIU team and the matter has not yet been resolved.In reviewing the file, it appears that there has been regular communication with Ms*** by
the handling adjuster and/or the SIU investigator. It is also evident that Ms*** is aware of the issues that are attempting to be resolved with relation to her claim.If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (337) 942-0249. Thank you.Scott AP***, Manager, Regulatory Affairs***
September 8, Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina Brookstown Ave. Ste Winston Salem, NC Attention: Melissa Neal RE: ID Claim Number: Policy Number: *** Underwritten by: Integon National
Insurance Company, NAIC Dear MsNeal, This letter is in response to your correspondence dated September 6, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is Integon National Insurance Company, NAIC On August 6, 2017, our company was notified that our insured’s vehicle sideswiped the claimant’s vehicleWe initiated a coverage and liability investigation to determine if coverage would be afforded On August 10, 2017, an inspection was completed of the claimant’s vehicle, and an initial estimate was determined to be in the amount of $1,205.73. The estimate was revised on August 30, to $1,The repair shop had received the wrong tire twice, and in an effort to expedite the repair process for the claimant, the additional funding was approved to obtain the correct tire On September 1, 2017, the claimant supplied the company with a with a diminished value report obtained from the internetWhile the report states the claimant’s vehicle would have an inherent diminished value of $1,because of repairs totaling $1,592, it also goes on to state that “…the amount of value lost by a particular vehicle is dependent on many factors, such as the year, make, model, condition, location of damage and the extent of damage”As illustrated by the provided photos and estimates, the damages were cosmetic On September 6, 2017, our Claims Representative offered the claimant $for their diminished value claim, which is a fair and reasonable valuation based on the damage to their vehicleWe are attempting to resolve his claim in good faithPlease feel free to contact me at 1-800-847-Extif I may be of further assistance Jillian *** Executive Service Specialist Tell us why here
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the complainant captioned above, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.The following represents a timeline for Ms***'s claim:09/- *** reports her claim for an
accident occurring earlier that morning involving our insured. The handling adjuster spoke with her this same day and took her statement.09/- A copy of the incident report was ordered. The handling adjuster spoke with *** again as she was inquiring about the status of her claim. She was advised that a statement needed to be secured from our insured. She was also told that she could provide photos of her damaged vehicle to the handling adjuster via an upload link that would be provided to her. This link was sent to her via text message.09/- A reminder text was sent to *** requesting the upload of her photos. She contacted the adjuster to advise that she had not yet received the text from the adjuster as indicated. The adjuster re-texted to her as the initial text and reminder were sent to an incorrect number. Shortly after they spoke, the photos were received.09/- A copy of the estimate written up on ***'s vehicle was mailed to her.09/- A copy of the incident report was received. The facts of the incident as reported by *** were corroborated by the report. The adjuster also made contact with our insured this date, who also reported the facts of the incident, which also coincided with that reported by ***. Liability on the part of our insured was accepted. Confirmation of coverage from her insurance company (i.eNo Pay, No Play) was requested.09/- *** spoke with the adjuster to confirm receipt of the written estimate as well as ask if the photos she submitted had been received, which they were. At this point she was advised that we were waiting for confirmation of coverage from her insurance company.09/- Confirmation of her coverage was received from her insurance company. Payment in the amount of $1,was issued to *** *** and mailed direct to her body shop, *** Body Shop.09/- *** advised that she was scheduled to drop off her vehicle at the body shop and requested a rental unit be provided during the duration of the repairs. The adjuster verified that the vehicle was being taken in that day. A rental was set up for *** and she was provided with a reservation number for the rental unit and advised its location.10/- The rental invoice was received and payment was issued on 10/direct to the rental company.As of this writing, there has been no indication from the body shop or *** that there are any supplements forth coming or that the estimate was deficient in any wayThis claim was reported on 09/and set up the same day. The claim was paid on 09/- calendar days later (of which were waiting for confirmation of coverage from her insurance company). So, we feel that this claim has been handled in a prudent and timely manner.If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Scott A***Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the captioned complainant, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.Ms*** reported her claim to us on May 19, for purported hail damage occurring about months prior to
this report. An inspection of the *** residence was ordered the same day. The inspection was done on May in the presence of Ms***. The final report was received by the handling adjuster on June and payment was issued to Ms*** on June in the amount of $($2,replacement cost estimate, less $1,deductible).Quite simply, the damages incurred were deemed repairable and not extensive anywhere to the point of a complete new roof being warranted. The repair estimate did include all areas of damage resulting from this reported damage.If you should have any further questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.Scott AP***, Manager, Regulatory Affairs***
December 11, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon Casualty Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of December 11, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding the reinstatement of his renewal policy Our records indicate the attached email was sent to the complainant on October 26, 2017, informing him that his renewal offer for the policy period of December 1, to December 1, 2018, was available at that time. The email states: “We are pleased to inform you that your renewal offer is now available In order to ensure continuous coverage your payment must be received on or before the effective date of your renewal offer.” The email also advises: “Payments can be made over the phone or by calling our customer service department at 1-877-468-3466, or by going to www.MyNatGenPolicy.com and registering your policy The enclosed renewal documents were available to the complainant on October 26, 2017, and contained a cover letter that stated: “Your payment must be received on or before the effective date of your renewal to assure continuous coverage.” The renewal documents also contained an invoice requesting payment by December 1, 2017, and states: “Your current policy will expire on 12/1/at 12:A.MWe are pleased to offer to renew your policy for another termYour renewal payment must be received by 12/1/in order to maintain continuous coverage.” A renewal payment was not received by December 1, 2017, and the complainant’s policy expired The policy file indicates the complainant accessed his renewal policy via our online customer portal on November 1, 2017, and provided consent for the “Paperless” option on his account No payment was received at that time. The company has no record of any additional attempts by the complainant to access the renewal policy, nor do we have record of receiving any contact from the complainant until December 4, Upon receipt of payment and a Statement of No Loss from the complainant on December 5, 2017, the company reinstated the policy without a lapse in coverage. In the complainant’s statement to the Bureau, he indicates that he signed electronic documents, and awaited notice of the new policy and an update to the website so that he could make his payment. Please note there was no “new” policy to be issued as the email dated October 26, 2017, which the complainant acknowledges he received, was our notice of renewal. The complainant further states that “you cannot make payments until the website updates to reflect the new policy.” The company respectfully disagrees with the complainant’s statements as the renewal policy was not contingent upon obtaining the complainant’s signed consent for our paperless option, and the option to make a payment toward the renewal policy was available right way, as of October 26, While the company understands this is not the outcome the complainant desires, we maintain that the complainant’s renewal policy expired due to nonpayment of premium and proper notice was provided. Therefore, it is the company’s position that the Reinstatement Charge of $was valid, and does apply to the reinstatement of the complainant’s policy Thank you again for allowing the company to respond Sincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance Tell us why here
October 16, 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 October 11, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding her attempt to obtain a quote Our records indicate the complainant began a quote for a homeowner’s policy with our company online which was incomplete. In the complainant’s statement to the Bureau she indicated she called to follow through on the policy, only to provide the same responses over the phone that she already provided online Please be advised the company has searched our incoming calls by the complainant’s phone number, as provided to the Bureau, and we are unable to locate a call where she spoke with one of our internal Sales Agents. It appears the complainant may have contacted an independent agent or broker for a quote because she states “the agent placed me on hold and returned to say that I am not eligible for coverage under any of their underwriters”. The company would not have record of calls to an independent agent or broker, and it is not our practice to not disclose the reason for declination of coverage While we have no record of an incoming call from the complainant directly with our company as stated, our company’s underwriting guidelines in Connecticut do indicate certain dog breeds, or any mix of, are ineligible for coverage Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
The claim in question was reported by our insured on September 6, 2016. During his statement he advised that he had already taken his vehicle to a shop for repairs. Our representative explained that we have not authorized repairs as we have not determined the amount of damage which we...
needed to do. The company understands that this topic upset our insured and we apologize for the same as that was not the intent. A normal part of our claims handling is the assessment of damages. If an insured begins repairs before we have the opportunity to review the damages, either in person or via photos, we are not able to determine damage related to the loss as reported. The company has been in contact with our insured and was able to obtain photos of the damage along with an estimate of repair from his shop. The company has settled our insured’s claim and payment for repair, less his deductible, was issued to him on September 12, 2016. Sincerely, T. Ray Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
On July 17, 2017, the complainant provided the facts of loss to the Claims Representative regarding the accident that occurred on July 16, 2017. The complainant advised that a tire on the semi-trailer they were following blew out, and that they had run over the debris from the blow out. On...
July 19, 2017, a Field Specialist contacted the complainant and scheduled an inspection of the complainant’s recreational vehicle (RV) for July 20, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the Field Specialist reviewed photos of the RV taken during the inspection with a Senior Specialty Technician and found the claimed damage to be inconsistent with the complainant’s provided facts of loss. In addition to the expected undercarriage damage, the complainant was also claiming damage to the right rear inner tire seal as well as the back-up camera, trailer wheel opening molding, right side compartment doors and side panel. The compartment doors in front of the rear axle had tire swirl marks, and the rear compartment door had semi-circular dust transfer indicative of a side-swipe incident, separate from running over blown tire debris. On July 27, 2017, the Material Damage (MD) Claims Representative created an estimate for repairs of the damage caused by running over debris was created that ultimately fell below the complainant’s chosen Comprehensive deductible. A letter advising the claimant of this was mailed to him the same day. On August 7, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative and expressed his dissatisfaction with the estimate. It was explained to him that if additional damages were found by his repair facility, he could send the shop’s estimate in for review. On September 14, 2017, the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative with concerns around the complainant’s fuel line, and advised that the RV would need to be evaluated by a Cummins repair facility before they could consider any other damages to the RV. Both the complainant’s repair facility and the Cummins facility provided by the repair facility were located in Florida, hundreds of miles away from where the damage occurred in North Carolina. On September 21, 2017, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who advised that he parked the RV after the accident, and that he made an appointment with the repair facility in Florida who scheduled him to come in four weeks later. The complainant advised that the RV broke down on the way to Florida, and alleged that it was due to fuel injectors that had broken and fragmented into the engine due to running over the blow out debris. He advised that he had travelled approximately 200 miles before noticing the smell of gasoline, and had to get the RV towed to the repair facility. The complainant advised that when the blow out occurred, the tire hit the side of his RV before being run over, which caused the rest of the damages. That same day, the MD Claims Representative reviewed the additional information provided by the complainant along with the initial photos with the Claim Manager, who agreed that the damages were consistent with the facts of loss. On September 27, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative to advise that his repair facility was waiting for approval of their estimate. The MD Claims Representative advised the complainant that the company had not been contacted for a supplement request by his repair facility, and that she would contact the repair facility directly. After disconnected with the complainant, the MD Claims Representative left a voicemail with his repair facility requesting a call back regarding their estimate and the towing of the complainant’s vehicle. The MD Claims Representative then called the complainant back to let him know a message had been left for his repair facility. That same day, the complainant called the MD Claims Representative to advise that the RV would be towed five miles. The MD Claims Representative advised the complainant that a diagnostic report was needed prior to any engine repairs being done. Later that day, the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative and advised the towing of the complainant’s vehicle to the Cummins facility would need to be arranged by our company. The MD Claims Representative called out to Cummins at the number provided by the complainant’s repair facility and received no answer. The MD Claims Representative called the complainant back and explained that it needed to be confirmed that Cummins had space for his RV prior to scheduling the tow. She also explained that the repair facility had not scheduled the inspection with Cummins. The complainant requested a call back from the Claim Manager. On September 29, 2017, the MD Claims Representative emailed the complainant’s repair facility requesting their supplemental estimate. On October 12, 2017, a check was mailed to the complainant for half of the total towing bill, as the complainant’s towing and labor coverage is for “…towing to the nearest place where the necessary repairs can be made during regular business hours if your covered auto will not run”. The complainant chose a repair facility out of state. On October 16, 2017, the complainant called the MD Claims Representative to advise he had not heard back from the Claim Manager. He also advised that he had the full body estimate from his repair facility. The MD Claims Representative requested the complainant send a copy in for review. On October 17, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative and said he still had not heard from the Claim Manager. He also asked if the invoice from his repair facility had been received as he had emailed it the night before. The MD Claims Representative advised it had not been received yet, but that it might not have been indexed to his claim yet. The MD Claims Representative transferred the complainant to an available Claim Manager. The complainant advised the Claim Manager that he had an estimate from his repair facility that had been sent in. The Claim Manager advised it was not yet in the file but that it would be followed up on. The complainant advised he was seeking full tow reimbursement as the repair facilities he contacted in North Carolina refused to service his vehicle as they did not sell it. As such, he had opted to take it back to the shop he originally purchased the RV from. After ending the call, the Claim Manager reviewed the file with the MD Claims Representative, and a check was mailed to the complainant for the remainder of the towing of the RV and for replacement of his trailer. The MD Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail updating him with the information. Later that day, the MD Claims Representative received the invoice from the complainant’s repair facility and forwarded it to the Field Specialist for Florida for review. On October 18, 2017, another check was issued to the complainant. On October 25, 2017, an estimate for mechanical damages was received and forwarded to the Field Specialist for review. On November 7, 2017, the Field Specialist contacted Cummins and confirmed the RV was still at their facility. He scheduled time the following morning for an inspection of the RV. On November 8, 2017, the Field Specialist reported the same as the Field Specialist in North Carolina, citing that the damages to the RV were not entirely consistent with the facts of loss. He advised that the rear cap was pushed in or forward, and would be expected from the RV being struck from the rear or backing into something. He also cited the right side door damage as being consistent with striking another vehicle from the circular marks and a hole in the sidewall three feet higher. On November 28, 2017, the Claim Manager reviewed the Field Specialist’s findings and requested the MD Claims Representative contact the complainant. On November 30, 2017, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who advised that the tire hit the side of his RV prior to him running it over, causing the undercarriage damage. The MD Claims Representative advised she would reexamine the claim again, but that a second claim might need to be opened. On December 8, 2017, the MD Claims Representative reviewed the damages with the Field Specialist. The MD Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail requesting a return call. The MD Claims Representative reviewed the damages with the Claim Manager, and they agreed that the right side damage was consistent with one loss, and the rear cap crack was consistent with a different loss. On December 12, 2017, the Senior MD Claims Representative contacted the repair facility and advised that the complainant would need to file a separate claim for the rear cap damage. The repair facility advised they would contact the complainant. Later that day, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative, who advised him of the need for a second claim. The complainant understood and opened a second claim that same day for the rear cap damage. On December 13, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative inquiring about the mechanical invoice and tire reimbursement. A check was mailed to him that same day for the requested items. On December 22, 2017, a representative with the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative for copies of the estimates submitted to the company to be emailed to him. There were two estimates on file at that point. That same day, a letter was mailed to the complainant advising there was partial coverage for his initial claim as the inspection revealed no physical damage to the fuel line to account for the RV’s mechanical failure and subsequent breakdown. The damages that would be covered were to the right side of the RV. On December 26, 2017, the Field Specialist returned a voicemail to the complainant’s repair facility, leaving a message requesting a call back. On December 29, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative advising that his RV needed to be moved if not approved that day. The MD Claims Representative sent over a rush request to the Material Damage Specialist. On January 2, 2018, the Field Specialist sent an estimate for repairs to the right side of the complainant’s RV to the collision service writer at the repair facility. A payment matching the estimate was mailed directly to the complainant the following day. On January 4, 2018, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative to dispute the partial coverage denial. He advised that his RV went two feet up off the ground when the impact occurred, and that he smelled fuel upon bringing the RV home. The complainant felt that the fuel lines were compromised from the debris he ran over. The MD Claims Representative reviewed the additional information with the Claim Manager, and the Claim Manager advised the denial stood. The MD Claims Representative called the complainant back and left a voicemail advising the denial would not be changed. Later that day, the complainant called back and advised he would be providing the estimate and evaluation from Cummins on where they believed the debris hit the mechanical components on the RV. After not receiving anything from Cummins, the MD Claims Representative called Cummins. Cummins advised that there was no cracking to indicate wear and tear to the seals, and that while he couldn’t confirm if the damage was from the original loss, he did believe the damage was from an impact. On January 12, 2018, the Claim Manager reviewed with the Field Specialist, who advised that at the time of the original inspection, he spoke to the tech that replaced the fuel line and they could not verify the cause of the leak. The fuel line was metal and had no damage, nor did the lines around it. That same day, the repair facility sent in a supplement request for internal items such as the bed pedestal, kitchen back splash and broken drawer slides. The Field Specialist reviewed and determined this damage to not be related to the complainant running over the tire debris. Later that day, the complainant called the Material Damage Claims Representative advising the check previously mailed directly to him needed to be reissued to both the complainant and the repair facility. A stop payment was placed on the original check and the two-party check was mailed to the repair facility on January 15, 2018. On January 16, 2018, the issues with the fuel line were reviewed by the Regional Claim Manager, who reconfirmed that there was no evidence to support the leak being related to running over a tire. The line itself sits high up and is surrounded by other parts that were undamaged. On January 17, 2018, the repair facility called the MD Claims Representative regarding the internal repairs to the complainant’s RV, advising that the complainant had requested an estimate to be sent to his insurance company for new cabinets, back splash and other interior items. The MD Claims Representative advised the repair facility that there is no evidence of internal damage to the RV based on the facts of loss. The repair facility requested the MD Claims Representative contact the complainant to review this with him. After disconnecting with the repair facility, the MD Claims Representative called the complainant regarding the interior damage he was now trying to claim. The complainant advised that when he hit the tire, the refrigerator broke off the wall and hit the cabinets and things tumbled out of the cabinets. The MD Claims Representative advised that this was the first time he had brought up the damage. The complainant got upset and indicated that his black water tank and well as his back up camera were damaged as well. The MD Claims Representative advised further investigation was required, and that once the supplements were received they would be reviewed for coverage. On January 30, 2018, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant and explained the damage repaired by Cummins was caused by mechanical breakdown based on the fact that nothing else around the fuel line sustained any damage. On February 7, 2018, a supplement was received for additional damages to the basement doors, outer basement structure and floor line molding. It was reviewed and revised by the Field Specialist and returned to the repair facility for approval. That same day, the repair facility approved the revised supplement and a check was mailed to them February 12, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative and advised they would be sending over a supplement request for the rear camera and water tank. The supplement was received and reviewed the following day. On February 23, 2018, the Field Specialist tried multiple times to call the repair facility service writer but could not get through. He sent an email to the service writer questioning the tank valve damage as it was on the left side of the vehicle, while the damage from the tire was on the right side. The Field Specialist also questioned how the reverse camera or refrigerator was related to the claim damage. Later that day, the Field Specialist spoke to the service writer regarding his concerns. He confirmed that, while the tank valves were leaking it was due to normal wear and tear, not related to the accident. While the picture was not coming through from the camera, there was no actual damage to the camera, and the refrigerator reattachment was deemed unrelated to the accident. The supplement request was denied. On March 13, 2018, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who alleged his deductible had been charged three times. The MD Claims Representative advised she would review his claim to verify if that had occurred. The complainant again disagreed on the partial coverage denial, insisting that the damage occurred during the accident. The MD Claims Representative advised that there was no evidence supporting his view on the damage, and as such it would not be paid for. In reviewing the claim later that day, the MD Claims Representative found that the complainant’s deductible had only been charged once on the claim. She also submitted a request to the Claim Manager to review the partial coverage denial. On March 14, 2018, the Claim Manager again confirmed that the interior damage and the rear camera would not be covered as there was no evidence they were related to the complainant hitting the tire. The MD Claims Representative and Field Specialist reviewed this with the repair facility. They advised the repair facility that the correct amounts had been paid out to the repair facility based on the approved estimates. On March 16, 2018, a partial denial letter was mailed to the complainant for the interior damage and the camera. While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustration with his claim, we respectfully advise it was handled appropriately. Several checks were issued in response to estimates and supplement requests received by the company, and the damages denied by the company were denied based on lack of proof that they were related to the complainant running over the tire. Throughout the claims process, the company was in contact with the complainant, his repair facility and Cummins in regards to payments and reasons behind any coverage denials. The company has indemnified the complainant for his loss in accordance with his policy contract. Tell us why here...
I am rejecting this response because: It is not accurate. Fit's of all I agreed to the fact that all carpet will be replaced. Secondly my policy clearly states wall to wall carpeting I have nothing show and exclusions. Finally your measurements are not accurate on what you claim you are paying. This is not acceptable at all.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 12618361
I am rejecting this response because:
Thank you for your help, on Monday the 15th I talked to the person that sold me the insurance in which he said that he didn’t know that we had to put out som in the policy. Yesterday, Monday the 22nd, we talked to a person who is incharge of the claim say that Thursday the 25th they are going to say if they fix my car or not after almost one month of having the accident. I do not recognize that the person selling me the insurance stated that I needed to put my son in the policy. Thank you for your help and hope they fix my car.
Regards,
Patrica [redacted]
From: [redacted] [mailto:[redacted]] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:03 PMTo: Kelly Mace <[email protected]>Subject: Re: A new message is waiting from the Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina in regards to your complaint #[redacted].claim #[redacted], Thanks for you swift response to my claim, the collision shop called me and said the company agreed to fix everything on the original estimate, I am very pleased however I got a call back a day later saying they did not want to replace the tires that was in the original estimate because the tires on my truck wasn't brand new, so because my tires were not new they feel they should not put brand new tires back on the truck, I don't understand what kind of tires they want to put on, do they want used tires, it"s things like this that is frustrating and the reason I am writing to you again, and as I wait I still have no car to drive to work and it's been a very long time. [redacted]
The
Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina
119
Brookstown Avenue, Suite 304
Winston,
Salem, NC 27101
Attention:
Johana Diaz
RE: Revdex.com ID: [redacted]
Dear
Ms. Diaz:
Thank you
for your email of July 7, 2015. Our
records indicate that our insured purchased four tires from ASAP Reliable Tires
on July 16, 2015 at $87.50 each, totaling $350.00. In addition, the company was informed that
our insured purchased four rims/wheels from an individual on Craigslist for a
total of $350.00.
Only two of
the tires and wheels were damaged in the loss occurring on June 4, 2015;
therefore, the company only owed our insured for the cost of two tires and
rims/wheels totaling $350.00. The
company also reimbursed our insured for the cost of an alignment and total payment
of $429.95 was remitted to him accordingly.
Sincerely,
T. Ray
Executive Customer Relations
National
General Insurance
April 21, 2017 The Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina 119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 304 Winston, Salem, NC 27101 Attention: Johana [redacted] RE: Revdex.com ID: ...
12105095 Date of Loss: March 27, 2017 Dear Ms. [redacted]: Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns related to the handling of her claim. The complainant reported the referenced collision loss to the company on March 28, 2017. The complainant advised she would take her vehicle to 1st Certified Collision Centers, one of our direct repair facilities, for repair. The company inspected her vehicle on March 29, 2017, completed our estimate, and issued payment for repair to 1st Certified Collision Centers on March 30, 2017. Upon receipt of your letter, the company contacted the complainant and learned that she had not contacted 1st Certified Collision Center to schedule an appointment, and we advised her to please do so as they are waiting to hear from her. Please be advised the company respectfully disagrees with the complainant’s statements to the Bureau regarding the handling of her claim. Thank you again for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. [redacted] Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance 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 response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I have spoken to a roofing expert to give me a quote for the roof.he told me I need a whole new roof replacement because the shingles are damaged very badly.the roof is leaking and the repairs would cost more then 2100 dollars.
[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Let me preface this complaint by saying I accept the fact of the other insured having cancelled the policy and that not being the insurance companies fault. Now my continued complaint is with the company never answering their phone after putting you on hold. I called the claims 800 number numerous times and never got a hold of one person until I called the IT department and they transferred me. They have no other way of corresponding ie. email either. Imperial is a sad business in how they put you on hold for so long. One time it even hung up on me. Then when I finally did get a claim and was referred to an adjuster that person did get a hold of me, but was very blatant in telling me not to contact her until she got everything figured out. Well, needless to say she never got a hold of me and when I did call her she was very short with me again. I then waited another month before contacting her again after which she stated she would get back with me. Again, I never received a call. So, I reluctantly called her again at which time she was more calm and told me she had closed the claim and sent it to someone else. (Really) without ever notifying me after she said she would. You see I had to do all of the chasing to find out what was going on. The last gentleman I had correspondence with was very patient and understanding of the circumstances and did apologize for the other rep. not getting back with me.I personally would never use a company that does business the way this one does. I am ok, with the fact the claim is closed and am glad to be done dealing with Imperial Fire & Casualty. Two months after the wreck.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you so much! The Direct Insurance Adjuster emailed me yesterday, stating that they were going to send a check to the repair shop to fix my tractor. I will be highly recommending the Revdex.com to everyone I know. Thank you again. Sent from my iPhone
Thank you for your correspondence of July 13, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the claimant’s concerns. The company acknowledges delays in our coverage investigation and apologizes for the same. Our insured cancelled their policy on the same day the loss...
occurred for reasons of obtaining other insurance which was not immediately clarified. The company has since clarified the cancellation of our insured’s policy, cleared coverage, and accepted liability for the claimant’s loss. We have been in touch with the claimant and obtained additional documentation from him to proceed with his property damage loss. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. Ray Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
October 23, 2017 Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina 100 S Marshall St, Suite 1 Winston Salem, NC 27101 RE: Case #: 12435892 Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC 29742 Dear Ms. Neal: Thank you for your email of October 23, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s follow up concerns regarding her attempt to obtain a quote. In review of the initial complaint received by the company the name of the person the complainant spoke with that declined coverage was not provided by the complainant. Furthermore, our system does not allow an agent or broker to “remove a quote,” and independent agents or brokers are not employed by the company. While we understand the complainant’s frustration, we are unable to respond on behalf of an independent agent or broker; and, as stated in our intial response, our records indicate the complainant began a quote for a homeowner’s policy with our company online which was incomplete. The company searched our incoming calls by the complainant’s phone number and we are unable to locate a call where she spoke with one of our internal Sales Agents. Please be advised the company has no record of a completed quote, nor do we have record of declining the complaint’s quote. Therefore, we are unable to provide her with the exact reason coverage was declined by the person she spoke with, although she appears to be aware that the breed of her dog would cause declination of coverage. In closing, the complainant presented an additional question “could this have been stated when the quote was being requested before they asked for my social security number?” The answer is, yes. If information provided by a customer that would deem them ineligible for coverage at any time during a quote, the quote may be discontinued. Thank you again for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. [redacted] Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
Thank you for your correspondence of August 2, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the claimant’s concernsA claim was filed with our company whereas our insured backed into her niece’s vehicle on July 15, 2016. The company was able to obtain the claimant’s
statement of loss on July 18, 2016. Our records indicate we followed up with the shop assigned to repair the claimant’s vehicle, one of the company’s direct repair facilities, on several occasions regarding our assignment of loss and our request for an estimate of repair and photosUnfortunately there were technical difficulties in assigning the loss to, and receiving an estimate and photos from, our direct repair facility. Ultimately this was able to be corrected and payment for repair was issued to the claimant on August 4, 2016. The company apologizes for the delayThank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, TRay
[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 12434408, and find that this resolution
is satisfactory to me. Good Evening, Michelle McGregor contacted me directly, and resolved my complaintPlease close this complaint file and notify National General that I have accepted their response. Thank You,Jamond *** *** ***
Regards,
Jamond ***
At this time, Ms***'s claim remains pending and is under further investigation due to the nature of her loss. Her claim has been referred to our SIU team and the matter has not yet been resolved.In reviewing the file, it appears that there has been regular communication with Ms*** by
the handling adjuster and/or the SIU investigator. It is also evident that Ms*** is aware of the issues that are attempting to be resolved with relation to her claim.If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (337) 942-0249. Thank you.Scott AP***, Manager, Regulatory Affairs***
September 8, Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina Brookstown Ave. Ste Winston Salem, NC Attention: Melissa Neal RE: ID Claim Number: Policy Number: *** Underwritten by: Integon National
Insurance Company, NAIC Dear MsNeal, This letter is in response to your correspondence dated September 6, As noted above, the correct underwriting company is Integon National Insurance Company, NAIC On August 6, 2017, our company was notified that our insured’s vehicle sideswiped the claimant’s vehicleWe initiated a coverage and liability investigation to determine if coverage would be afforded On August 10, 2017, an inspection was completed of the claimant’s vehicle, and an initial estimate was determined to be in the amount of $1,205.73. The estimate was revised on August 30, to $1,The repair shop had received the wrong tire twice, and in an effort to expedite the repair process for the claimant, the additional funding was approved to obtain the correct tire On September 1, 2017, the claimant supplied the company with a with a diminished value report obtained from the internetWhile the report states the claimant’s vehicle would have an inherent diminished value of $1,because of repairs totaling $1,592, it also goes on to state that “…the amount of value lost by a particular vehicle is dependent on many factors, such as the year, make, model, condition, location of damage and the extent of damage”As illustrated by the provided photos and estimates, the damages were cosmetic On September 6, 2017, our Claims Representative offered the claimant $for their diminished value claim, which is a fair and reasonable valuation based on the damage to their vehicleWe are attempting to resolve his claim in good faithPlease feel free to contact me at 1-800-847-Extif I may be of further assistance Jillian *** Executive Service Specialist Tell us why here
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the complainant captioned above, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.The following represents a timeline for Ms***'s claim:09/- *** reports her claim for an
accident occurring earlier that morning involving our insured. The handling adjuster spoke with her this same day and took her statement.09/- A copy of the incident report was ordered. The handling adjuster spoke with *** again as she was inquiring about the status of her claim. She was advised that a statement needed to be secured from our insured. She was also told that she could provide photos of her damaged vehicle to the handling adjuster via an upload link that would be provided to her. This link was sent to her via text message.09/- A reminder text was sent to *** requesting the upload of her photos. She contacted the adjuster to advise that she had not yet received the text from the adjuster as indicated. The adjuster re-texted to her as the initial text and reminder were sent to an incorrect number. Shortly after they spoke, the photos were received.09/- A copy of the estimate written up on ***'s vehicle was mailed to her.09/- A copy of the incident report was received. The facts of the incident as reported by *** were corroborated by the report. The adjuster also made contact with our insured this date, who also reported the facts of the incident, which also coincided with that reported by ***. Liability on the part of our insured was accepted. Confirmation of coverage from her insurance company (i.eNo Pay, No Play) was requested.09/- *** spoke with the adjuster to confirm receipt of the written estimate as well as ask if the photos she submitted had been received, which they were. At this point she was advised that we were waiting for confirmation of coverage from her insurance company.09/- Confirmation of her coverage was received from her insurance company. Payment in the amount of $1,was issued to *** *** and mailed direct to her body shop, *** Body Shop.09/- *** advised that she was scheduled to drop off her vehicle at the body shop and requested a rental unit be provided during the duration of the repairs. The adjuster verified that the vehicle was being taken in that day. A rental was set up for *** and she was provided with a reservation number for the rental unit and advised its location.10/- The rental invoice was received and payment was issued on 10/direct to the rental company.As of this writing, there has been no indication from the body shop or *** that there are any supplements forth coming or that the estimate was deficient in any wayThis claim was reported on 09/and set up the same day. The claim was paid on 09/- calendar days later (of which were waiting for confirmation of coverage from her insurance company). So, we feel that this claim has been handled in a prudent and timely manner.If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Scott A***Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company has received your correspondence as it relates to the captioned complainant, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide a response.Ms*** reported her claim to us on May 19, for purported hail damage occurring about months prior to
this report. An inspection of the *** residence was ordered the same day. The inspection was done on May in the presence of Ms***. The final report was received by the handling adjuster on June and payment was issued to Ms*** on June in the amount of $($2,replacement cost estimate, less $1,deductible).Quite simply, the damages incurred were deemed repairable and not extensive anywhere to the point of a complete new roof being warranted. The repair estimate did include all areas of damage resulting from this reported damage.If you should have any further questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.Scott AP***, Manager, Regulatory Affairs***
December 11, Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina S Marshall St, Suite Winston Salem, NC RE: Case #:
Underwriting Company: Integon Casualty Insurance Company-NAIC Dear MsNeal: Thank you for your email of December 11, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding the reinstatement of his renewal policy Our records indicate the attached email was sent to the complainant on October 26, 2017, informing him that his renewal offer for the policy period of December 1, to December 1, 2018, was available at that time. The email states: “We are pleased to inform you that your renewal offer is now available In order to ensure continuous coverage your payment must be received on or before the effective date of your renewal offer.” The email also advises: “Payments can be made over the phone or by calling our customer service department at 1-877-468-3466, or by going to www.MyNatGenPolicy.com and registering your policy The enclosed renewal documents were available to the complainant on October 26, 2017, and contained a cover letter that stated: “Your payment must be received on or before the effective date of your renewal to assure continuous coverage.” The renewal documents also contained an invoice requesting payment by December 1, 2017, and states: “Your current policy will expire on 12/1/at 12:A.MWe are pleased to offer to renew your policy for another termYour renewal payment must be received by 12/1/in order to maintain continuous coverage.” A renewal payment was not received by December 1, 2017, and the complainant’s policy expired The policy file indicates the complainant accessed his renewal policy via our online customer portal on November 1, 2017, and provided consent for the “Paperless” option on his account No payment was received at that time. The company has no record of any additional attempts by the complainant to access the renewal policy, nor do we have record of receiving any contact from the complainant until December 4, Upon receipt of payment and a Statement of No Loss from the complainant on December 5, 2017, the company reinstated the policy without a lapse in coverage. In the complainant’s statement to the Bureau, he indicates that he signed electronic documents, and awaited notice of the new policy and an update to the website so that he could make his payment. Please note there was no “new” policy to be issued as the email dated October 26, 2017, which the complainant acknowledges he received, was our notice of renewal. The complainant further states that “you cannot make payments until the website updates to reflect the new policy.” The company respectfully disagrees with the complainant’s statements as the renewal policy was not contingent upon obtaining the complainant’s signed consent for our paperless option, and the option to make a payment toward the renewal policy was available right way, as of October 26, While the company understands this is not the outcome the complainant desires, we maintain that the complainant’s renewal policy expired due to nonpayment of premium and proper notice was provided. Therefore, it is the company’s position that the Reinstatement Charge of $was valid, and does apply to the reinstatement of the complainant’s policy Thank you again for allowing the company to respond Sincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance Tell us why here
October 16, 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 October 11, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns regarding her attempt to obtain a quote Our records indicate the complainant began a quote for a homeowner’s policy with our company online which was incomplete. In the complainant’s statement to the Bureau she indicated she called to follow through on the policy, only to provide the same responses over the phone that she already provided online Please be advised the company has searched our incoming calls by the complainant’s phone number, as provided to the Bureau, and we are unable to locate a call where she spoke with one of our internal Sales Agents. It appears the complainant may have contacted an independent agent or broker for a quote because she states “the agent placed me on hold and returned to say that I am not eligible for coverage under any of their underwriters”. The company would not have record of calls to an independent agent or broker, and it is not our practice to not disclose the reason for declination of coverage While we have no record of an incoming call from the complainant directly with our company as stated, our company’s underwriting guidelines in Connecticut do indicate certain dog breeds, or any mix of, are ineligible for coverage Thank you again for allowing the company to respondSincerely, T*** Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
The claim in question was reported by our insured on September 6, 2016. During his statement he advised that he had already taken his vehicle to a shop for repairs. Our representative explained that we have not authorized repairs as we have not determined the amount of damage which we...
needed to do. The company understands that this topic upset our insured and we apologize for the same as that was not the intent. A normal part of our claims handling is the assessment of damages. If an insured begins repairs before we have the opportunity to review the damages, either in person or via photos, we are not able to determine damage related to the loss as reported. The company has been in contact with our insured and was able to obtain photos of the damage along with an estimate of repair from his shop. The company has settled our insured’s claim and payment for repair, less his deductible, was issued to him on September 12, 2016. Sincerely, T. Ray Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
On July 17, 2017, the complainant provided the facts of loss to the Claims Representative regarding the accident that occurred on July 16, 2017. The complainant advised that a tire on the semi-trailer they were following blew out, and that they had run over the debris from the blow out. On...
July 19, 2017, a Field Specialist contacted the complainant and scheduled an inspection of the complainant’s recreational vehicle (RV) for July 20, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the Field Specialist reviewed photos of the RV taken during the inspection with a Senior Specialty Technician and found the claimed damage to be inconsistent with the complainant’s provided facts of loss. In addition to the expected undercarriage damage, the complainant was also claiming damage to the right rear inner tire seal as well as the back-up camera, trailer wheel opening molding, right side compartment doors and side panel. The compartment doors in front of the rear axle had tire swirl marks, and the rear compartment door had semi-circular dust transfer indicative of a side-swipe incident, separate from running over blown tire debris. On July 27, 2017, the Material Damage (MD) Claims Representative created an estimate for repairs of the damage caused by running over debris was created that ultimately fell below the complainant’s chosen Comprehensive deductible. A letter advising the claimant of this was mailed to him the same day. On August 7, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative and expressed his dissatisfaction with the estimate. It was explained to him that if additional damages were found by his repair facility, he could send the shop’s estimate in for review. On September 14, 2017, the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative with concerns around the complainant’s fuel line, and advised that the RV would need to be evaluated by a Cummins repair facility before they could consider any other damages to the RV. Both the complainant’s repair facility and the Cummins facility provided by the repair facility were located in Florida, hundreds of miles away from where the damage occurred in North Carolina. On September 21, 2017, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who advised that he parked the RV after the accident, and that he made an appointment with the repair facility in Florida who scheduled him to come in four weeks later. The complainant advised that the RV broke down on the way to Florida, and alleged that it was due to fuel injectors that had broken and fragmented into the engine due to running over the blow out debris. He advised that he had travelled approximately 200 miles before noticing the smell of gasoline, and had to get the RV towed to the repair facility. The complainant advised that when the blow out occurred, the tire hit the side of his RV before being run over, which caused the rest of the damages. That same day, the MD Claims Representative reviewed the additional information provided by the complainant along with the initial photos with the Claim Manager, who agreed that the damages were consistent with the facts of loss. On September 27, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative to advise that his repair facility was waiting for approval of their estimate. The MD Claims Representative advised the complainant that the company had not been contacted for a supplement request by his repair facility, and that she would contact the repair facility directly. After disconnected with the complainant, the MD Claims Representative left a voicemail with his repair facility requesting a call back regarding their estimate and the towing of the complainant’s vehicle. The MD Claims Representative then called the complainant back to let him know a message had been left for his repair facility. That same day, the complainant called the MD Claims Representative to advise that the RV would be towed five miles. The MD Claims Representative advised the complainant that a diagnostic report was needed prior to any engine repairs being done. Later that day, the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative and advised the towing of the complainant’s vehicle to the Cummins facility would need to be arranged by our company. The MD Claims Representative called out to Cummins at the number provided by the complainant’s repair facility and received no answer. The MD Claims Representative called the complainant back and explained that it needed to be confirmed that Cummins had space for his RV prior to scheduling the tow. She also explained that the repair facility had not scheduled the inspection with Cummins. The complainant requested a call back from the Claim Manager. On September 29, 2017, the MD Claims Representative emailed the complainant’s repair facility requesting their supplemental estimate. On October 12, 2017, a check was mailed to the complainant for half of the total towing bill, as the complainant’s towing and labor coverage is for “…towing to the nearest place where the necessary repairs can be made during regular business hours if your covered auto will not run”. The complainant chose a repair facility out of state. On October 16, 2017, the complainant called the MD Claims Representative to advise he had not heard back from the Claim Manager. He also advised that he had the full body estimate from his repair facility. The MD Claims Representative requested the complainant send a copy in for review. On October 17, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative and said he still had not heard from the Claim Manager. He also asked if the invoice from his repair facility had been received as he had emailed it the night before. The MD Claims Representative advised it had not been received yet, but that it might not have been indexed to his claim yet. The MD Claims Representative transferred the complainant to an available Claim Manager. The complainant advised the Claim Manager that he had an estimate from his repair facility that had been sent in. The Claim Manager advised it was not yet in the file but that it would be followed up on. The complainant advised he was seeking full tow reimbursement as the repair facilities he contacted in North Carolina refused to service his vehicle as they did not sell it. As such, he had opted to take it back to the shop he originally purchased the RV from. After ending the call, the Claim Manager reviewed the file with the MD Claims Representative, and a check was mailed to the complainant for the remainder of the towing of the RV and for replacement of his trailer. The MD Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail updating him with the information. Later that day, the MD Claims Representative received the invoice from the complainant’s repair facility and forwarded it to the Field Specialist for Florida for review. On October 18, 2017, another check was issued to the complainant. On October 25, 2017, an estimate for mechanical damages was received and forwarded to the Field Specialist for review. On November 7, 2017, the Field Specialist contacted Cummins and confirmed the RV was still at their facility. He scheduled time the following morning for an inspection of the RV. On November 8, 2017, the Field Specialist reported the same as the Field Specialist in North Carolina, citing that the damages to the RV were not entirely consistent with the facts of loss. He advised that the rear cap was pushed in or forward, and would be expected from the RV being struck from the rear or backing into something. He also cited the right side door damage as being consistent with striking another vehicle from the circular marks and a hole in the sidewall three feet higher. On November 28, 2017, the Claim Manager reviewed the Field Specialist’s findings and requested the MD Claims Representative contact the complainant. On November 30, 2017, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who advised that the tire hit the side of his RV prior to him running it over, causing the undercarriage damage. The MD Claims Representative advised she would reexamine the claim again, but that a second claim might need to be opened. On December 8, 2017, the MD Claims Representative reviewed the damages with the Field Specialist. The MD Claims Representative left the complainant a voicemail requesting a return call. The MD Claims Representative reviewed the damages with the Claim Manager, and they agreed that the right side damage was consistent with one loss, and the rear cap crack was consistent with a different loss. On December 12, 2017, the Senior MD Claims Representative contacted the repair facility and advised that the complainant would need to file a separate claim for the rear cap damage. The repair facility advised they would contact the complainant. Later that day, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative, who advised him of the need for a second claim. The complainant understood and opened a second claim that same day for the rear cap damage. On December 13, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative inquiring about the mechanical invoice and tire reimbursement. A check was mailed to him that same day for the requested items. On December 22, 2017, a representative with the complainant’s repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative for copies of the estimates submitted to the company to be emailed to him. There were two estimates on file at that point. That same day, a letter was mailed to the complainant advising there was partial coverage for his initial claim as the inspection revealed no physical damage to the fuel line to account for the RV’s mechanical failure and subsequent breakdown. The damages that would be covered were to the right side of the RV. On December 26, 2017, the Field Specialist returned a voicemail to the complainant’s repair facility, leaving a message requesting a call back. On December 29, 2017, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative advising that his RV needed to be moved if not approved that day. The MD Claims Representative sent over a rush request to the Material Damage Specialist. On January 2, 2018, the Field Specialist sent an estimate for repairs to the right side of the complainant’s RV to the collision service writer at the repair facility. A payment matching the estimate was mailed directly to the complainant the following day. On January 4, 2018, the complainant contacted the MD Claims Representative to dispute the partial coverage denial. He advised that his RV went two feet up off the ground when the impact occurred, and that he smelled fuel upon bringing the RV home. The complainant felt that the fuel lines were compromised from the debris he ran over. The MD Claims Representative reviewed the additional information with the Claim Manager, and the Claim Manager advised the denial stood. The MD Claims Representative called the complainant back and left a voicemail advising the denial would not be changed. Later that day, the complainant called back and advised he would be providing the estimate and evaluation from Cummins on where they believed the debris hit the mechanical components on the RV. After not receiving anything from Cummins, the MD Claims Representative called Cummins. Cummins advised that there was no cracking to indicate wear and tear to the seals, and that while he couldn’t confirm if the damage was from the original loss, he did believe the damage was from an impact. On January 12, 2018, the Claim Manager reviewed with the Field Specialist, who advised that at the time of the original inspection, he spoke to the tech that replaced the fuel line and they could not verify the cause of the leak. The fuel line was metal and had no damage, nor did the lines around it. That same day, the repair facility sent in a supplement request for internal items such as the bed pedestal, kitchen back splash and broken drawer slides. The Field Specialist reviewed and determined this damage to not be related to the complainant running over the tire debris. Later that day, the complainant called the Material Damage Claims Representative advising the check previously mailed directly to him needed to be reissued to both the complainant and the repair facility. A stop payment was placed on the original check and the two-party check was mailed to the repair facility on January 15, 2018. On January 16, 2018, the issues with the fuel line were reviewed by the Regional Claim Manager, who reconfirmed that there was no evidence to support the leak being related to running over a tire. The line itself sits high up and is surrounded by other parts that were undamaged. On January 17, 2018, the repair facility called the MD Claims Representative regarding the internal repairs to the complainant’s RV, advising that the complainant had requested an estimate to be sent to his insurance company for new cabinets, back splash and other interior items. The MD Claims Representative advised the repair facility that there is no evidence of internal damage to the RV based on the facts of loss. The repair facility requested the MD Claims Representative contact the complainant to review this with him. After disconnecting with the repair facility, the MD Claims Representative called the complainant regarding the interior damage he was now trying to claim. The complainant advised that when he hit the tire, the refrigerator broke off the wall and hit the cabinets and things tumbled out of the cabinets. The MD Claims Representative advised that this was the first time he had brought up the damage. The complainant got upset and indicated that his black water tank and well as his back up camera were damaged as well. The MD Claims Representative advised further investigation was required, and that once the supplements were received they would be reviewed for coverage. On January 30, 2018, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant and explained the damage repaired by Cummins was caused by mechanical breakdown based on the fact that nothing else around the fuel line sustained any damage. On February 7, 2018, a supplement was received for additional damages to the basement doors, outer basement structure and floor line molding. It was reviewed and revised by the Field Specialist and returned to the repair facility for approval. That same day, the repair facility approved the revised supplement and a check was mailed to them February 12, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the repair facility contacted the MD Claims Representative and advised they would be sending over a supplement request for the rear camera and water tank. The supplement was received and reviewed the following day. On February 23, 2018, the Field Specialist tried multiple times to call the repair facility service writer but could not get through. He sent an email to the service writer questioning the tank valve damage as it was on the left side of the vehicle, while the damage from the tire was on the right side. The Field Specialist also questioned how the reverse camera or refrigerator was related to the claim damage. Later that day, the Field Specialist spoke to the service writer regarding his concerns. He confirmed that, while the tank valves were leaking it was due to normal wear and tear, not related to the accident. While the picture was not coming through from the camera, there was no actual damage to the camera, and the refrigerator reattachment was deemed unrelated to the accident. The supplement request was denied. On March 13, 2018, the MD Claims Representative contacted the complainant, who alleged his deductible had been charged three times. The MD Claims Representative advised she would review his claim to verify if that had occurred. The complainant again disagreed on the partial coverage denial, insisting that the damage occurred during the accident. The MD Claims Representative advised that there was no evidence supporting his view on the damage, and as such it would not be paid for. In reviewing the claim later that day, the MD Claims Representative found that the complainant’s deductible had only been charged once on the claim. She also submitted a request to the Claim Manager to review the partial coverage denial. On March 14, 2018, the Claim Manager again confirmed that the interior damage and the rear camera would not be covered as there was no evidence they were related to the complainant hitting the tire. The MD Claims Representative and Field Specialist reviewed this with the repair facility. They advised the repair facility that the correct amounts had been paid out to the repair facility based on the approved estimates. On March 16, 2018, a partial denial letter was mailed to the complainant for the interior damage and the camera. While the company can appreciate the complainant’s frustration with his claim, we respectfully advise it was handled appropriately. Several checks were issued in response to estimates and supplement requests received by the company, and the damages denied by the company were denied based on lack of proof that they were related to the complainant running over the tire. Throughout the claims process, the company was in contact with the complainant, his repair facility and Cummins in regards to payments and reasons behind any coverage denials. The company has indemnified the complainant for his loss in accordance with his policy contract. Tell us why here...
I am rejecting this response because: It is not accurate. Fit's of all I agreed to the fact that all carpet will be replaced. Secondly my policy clearly states wall to wall carpeting I have nothing show and exclusions. Finally your measurements are not accurate on what you claim you are paying. This is not acceptable at all.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 12618361
I am rejecting this response because:
Thank you for your help, on Monday the 15th I talked to the person that sold me the insurance in which he said that he didn’t know that we had to put out som in the policy. Yesterday, Monday the 22nd, we talked to a person who is incharge of the claim say that Thursday the 25th they are going to say if they fix my car or not after almost one month of having the accident. I do not recognize that the person selling me the insurance stated that I needed to put my son in the policy. Thank you for your help and hope they fix my car.
Regards,
Patrica [redacted]
From: [redacted] [mailto:[redacted]] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 8:03 PMTo: Kelly Mace <[email protected]>Subject: Re: A new message is waiting from the Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina in regards to your complaint #[redacted].claim #[redacted], Thanks for you swift response to my claim, the collision shop called me and said the company agreed to fix everything on the original estimate, I am very pleased however I got a call back a day later saying they did not want to replace the tires that was in the original estimate because the tires on my truck wasn't brand new, so because my tires were not new they feel they should not put brand new tires back on the truck, I don't understand what kind of tires they want to put on, do they want used tires, it"s things like this that is frustrating and the reason I am writing to you again, and as I wait I still have no car to drive to work and it's been a very long time. [redacted]
August
14, 2014
The
Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina
119
Brookstown Avenue, Suite 304
Winston,
Salem, NC 27101
Attention:
Johana Diaz
RE: Revdex.com ID: [redacted]
Dear
Ms. Diaz:
Thank you
for your email of July 7, 2015. Our
records indicate that our insured purchased four tires from ASAP Reliable Tires
on July 16, 2015 at $87.50 each, totaling $350.00. In addition, the company was informed that
our insured purchased four rims/wheels from an individual on Craigslist for a
total of $350.00.
Only two of
the tires and wheels were damaged in the loss occurring on June 4, 2015;
therefore, the company only owed our insured for the cost of two tires and
rims/wheels totaling $350.00. The
company also reimbursed our insured for the cost of an alignment and total payment
of $429.95 was remitted to him accordingly.
Sincerely,
T. Ray
Executive Customer Relations
National
General Insurance
April 21, 2017 The Revdex.com of Northwest North Carolina 119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 304 Winston, Salem, NC 27101 Attention: Johana [redacted] RE: Revdex.com ID: ...
12105095 Date of Loss: March 27, 2017 Dear Ms. [redacted]: Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s concerns related to the handling of her claim. The complainant reported the referenced collision loss to the company on March 28, 2017. The complainant advised she would take her vehicle to 1st Certified Collision Centers, one of our direct repair facilities, for repair. The company inspected her vehicle on March 29, 2017, completed our estimate, and issued payment for repair to 1st Certified Collision Centers on March 30, 2017. Upon receipt of your letter, the company contacted the complainant and learned that she had not contacted 1st Certified Collision Center to schedule an appointment, and we advised her to please do so as they are waiting to hear from her. Please be advised the company respectfully disagrees with the complainant’s statements to the Bureau regarding the handling of her claim. Thank you again for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. [redacted] Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance 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 response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I have spoken to a roofing expert to give me a quote for the roof.he told me I need a whole new roof replacement because the shingles are damaged very badly.the roof is leaking and the repairs would cost more then 2100 dollars.
[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Let me preface this complaint by saying I accept the fact of the other insured having cancelled the policy and that not being the insurance companies fault. Now my continued complaint is with the company never answering their phone after putting you on hold. I called the claims 800 number numerous times and never got a hold of one person until I called the IT department and they transferred me. They have no other way of corresponding ie. email either. Imperial is a sad business in how they put you on hold for so long. One time it even hung up on me. Then when I finally did get a claim and was referred to an adjuster that person did get a hold of me, but was very blatant in telling me not to contact her until she got everything figured out. Well, needless to say she never got a hold of me and when I did call her she was very short with me again. I then waited another month before contacting her again after which she stated she would get back with me. Again, I never received a call. So, I reluctantly called her again at which time she was more calm and told me she had closed the claim and sent it to someone else. (Really) without ever notifying me after she said she would. You see I had to do all of the chasing to find out what was going on. The last gentleman I had correspondence with was very patient and understanding of the circumstances and did apologize for the other rep. not getting back with me.I personally would never use a company that does business the way this one does. I am ok, with the fact the claim is closed and am glad to be done dealing with Imperial Fire & Casualty. Two months after the wreck.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you so much! The Direct Insurance Adjuster emailed me yesterday, stating that they were going to send a check to the repair shop to fix my tractor. I will be highly recommending the Revdex.com to everyone I know. Thank you again. Sent from my iPhone
Thank you for your correspondence of July 13, 2016. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the claimant’s concerns. The company acknowledges delays in our coverage investigation and apologizes for the same. Our insured cancelled their policy on the same day the loss...
occurred for reasons of obtaining other insurance which was not immediately clarified. The company has since clarified the cancellation of our insured’s policy, cleared coverage, and accepted liability for the claimant’s loss. We have been in touch with the claimant and obtained additional documentation from him to proceed with his property damage loss. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. Ray Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance
October 23, 2017 Melissa Neal The Revdex.com serving Northwest North Carolina 100 S Marshall St, Suite 1 Winston Salem, NC 27101 RE: Case #: 12435892 Underwriting Company: Integon National Insurance Company-NAIC 29742 Dear Ms. Neal: Thank you for your email of October 23, 2017. The company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the complainant’s follow up concerns regarding her attempt to obtain a quote. In review of the initial complaint received by the company the name of the person the complainant spoke with that declined coverage was not provided by the complainant. Furthermore, our system does not allow an agent or broker to “remove a quote,” and independent agents or brokers are not employed by the company. While we understand the complainant’s frustration, we are unable to respond on behalf of an independent agent or broker; and, as stated in our intial response, our records indicate the complainant began a quote for a homeowner’s policy with our company online which was incomplete. The company searched our incoming calls by the complainant’s phone number and we are unable to locate a call where she spoke with one of our internal Sales Agents. Please be advised the company has no record of a completed quote, nor do we have record of declining the complaint’s quote. Therefore, we are unable to provide her with the exact reason coverage was declined by the person she spoke with, although she appears to be aware that the breed of her dog would cause declination of coverage. In closing, the complainant presented an additional question “could this have been stated when the quote was being requested before they asked for my social security number?” The answer is, yes. If information provided by a customer that would deem them ineligible for coverage at any time during a quote, the quote may be discontinued. Thank you again for allowing the company to respond. Sincerely, T. [redacted] Executive Customer Relations National General Insurance