November 10, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois Complaint ID#: [redacted] Consumer: Stephanie [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: The Complainant’s agent called the company on 10/31/inquiring as to why the complainant was still receiving invoices since she had requested to have policy cancelledIt was explained to agent that we had not received any call or had any contact with complainant regarding a request to cancel The agent submitted proof of replacement coverage with an effective date of 9/25/7:PM and indicated complainant would submit signed request to cancel The signed request to cancel was received on 11/1/ The cancelation was processed on 11/2/with a 9/26/effective date A refund payment has been processed to the complainant in the amount of $ Given that the company did not receive any prior request to cancel the policy, we believe we have acted appropriately when finally receiving the request for cancellation on 11/1/ Respectfully, Heather [redacted] VP of [redacted] Phone: [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: First Chicago never told me that they would be holding my car for a month before inspecting it and telling if they was going to take care of it They did not contact me with this cost until a month later and after I went to the shop and realize they are located next door to the shop they towed the car to I had no problem in taking care of the cost myself seeing that is exactly what I did The problem is they towed it to the shop of their choice and held it saying that have to check it out as if the shop was not right next door They could have just told me early and not month after the fact that they was not going to cover it Also did not tell me this until I contacted the Revdex.com with a complaint I realized who what type of company I was dealing with when I read the reviews a few days ago I now understand the power of reserch before purchasing insurance Not to mention during this time this company continue to collect a payment from me, which could have went towards my car And as far as no insurance before.....Let the record show that I explained to the agent when I bought the policy that I had been on bed rest do to having a new baby It was not that I just didn't having insurance Sincerely, Porsha [redacted]
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/08/11) */ August 11, Revdex.com NWabash Ave, Ste Chicago, IL XXXXX RE: Our Claim Number: ILVXXXXX Our Insured/Consumer: Eddie [redacted] Complaint Case Number: XXXXXXXX Dear RevDex.com: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by Eddie [redacted] This claim was reported to our company on 6/29/and involves the theft of complainant's Jeep Liberty which was to have occurred on 6/27/The vehicle was recovered and we arranged to have it inspected by one of our appraisers so an estimate of damages could be preparedSaid inspection occurred on 6/29/ As part of the claim process, we forwarded the complainant our Affidavit of Theft on 6/30/The police report for this loss was requested, however was unavailable even as of 7/24/15, when we took the initiative to personally send a representative of the company to the Central Records Office of the [redacted] Department Mr [redacted] returned his Affidavit to us on 7/27/Further communication with a representative of the CPD indicated that a filing error may have been responsible for the report being unavailable at the time of request, however, confirmed that report HYXXXXXX was, indeed, a theft report for Mr [redacted] At this time we will be proceeding with settlement on this claim and have arranged for Mr [redacted] to take his vehicle to a company approved facility or into the repair facility of his choice should they honor our repair estimate While we regret that this claim was not concluded as quickly as the complainant had hoped or anticipated, the securing of a police report was a necessary step in the validation of the claim and coverageIn addition we note that it took the complainant approximately days to return the completed Affidavit of TheftUnfortunately in this instance this process was delayed for reasons beyond our control as indicated aboveIn conclusion, we believe that this matter is now concludedIf you have any questions, please contact me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX Sincerely, James [redacted] Director of Claims [redacted] @firstchicagoinsurance.com
January 23, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Our Claim No.: [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: Please allow this to serve as our response to the complaint filed by Nancy [redacted] This loss was reported to the company by the complainant on 12/26/At that time the complainant reported that our insured failed to stop at a stop sign and the driver of the complainant vehicle was unable to avoid the collision, causing damage to the front driver side of their vehicleThe complainant further reported to the company that their vehicle was not drivable due to the damagesThe company explained that in the event a vehicle is non drivable that an appraiser would be sent out for an inspection of the damagesWorking under the assumption that the vehicle was non drivable, the company explained that rental is on a reimbursement basis up to $per day which would be reviewed for reimbursement upon receipt of the paid invoice Upon further review of the claim, it was determined that the complainant vehicle was in fact drivableThe vehicle was driven from the scene with minor damage to the front driver side including the headlightThe Elmwood Park police (who the complainant’s husband is a former member) were on scene to file a report deemed the vehicle safe for operation on the roadway and allowed the complainant driver to leave the scene without requesting a towOn 12/29/the company attempted to reach out to the complainant and advise of the new findings, a voice message was left requesting return contact On 12/29/the company spoke with our insured driver who stated that he was traveling north bound on 76th stapproaching a stop signThe insured came to a complete stop, then began to proceed across Armitage AveThe complainant who was traveling on Armitage then struck the insured vehicle near the rear driver’s side wheel causing minimal damages to both vehiclesThe insured stated that he attempted to speed up across the intersection to avoid the incident but was still struck near the rear of his vehicle by the front end of the complainant vehicle On 1/4/the complainant contacted the company requesting status on an inspection of the vehicleAt this time it was explained to the complainant that the vehicle would in fact be considered drivable and it was requested that the vehicle be taken to an inspection location in their areaThe complainant was scheduled for an inspection in the morning/early afternoon of 1/5/so that the company could assess the damages The company spoke with the complainant driver on 1/4/18, wherein she stated that she was traveling on Armitage Avewhen our insured driver failed to stop at a posted stop signIt was at this time the complainant front driver side struck the rear driver side of the insured vehicleThe complainant stated that at the time there was a light snow which was accumulating on the roadway On 1/5/the company spoke again with the complainant and advised that the vehicle does appear to be drivable according to police on scene reports and statements from the involved driversThe company advised that if when presented at the inspection the appraiser felt the vehicle was inoperable then we would allow the vehicle to be left at the location and transportation assistance would be provided in getting to a nearby rental facilityThe company then explained to the complainant that rental is on a reimbursement basis of $daily which would be reviewed once the vehicle has been deemed inoperable or once the vehicle is disabled due to repairs The complainant estimate was received totaling $in damages to the front driver side of the complainant vehicleThe company reached out to the complainant to discuss resolution of the claim, unfortunately the phone rang twice and went silent on multiple attempts leaving no option of a voice message system The complainant returned the call and was advised that the company would be accepting 50% liability based on the complainants duty to act as a defensive driver and maintain a proper lookout when operating the vehicleIt was also noted to the complainant of her duty as a driver to maintain control of her vehicle in weather conditionsThe insured vehicle had nearly made it across the intersection prior to being struck in the rear driver sideThe complainant did not accept the liability determination at that time and the offer was sent in writing The company contacted the complainant to discuss the claim in hopes of coming to a fair resolutionIn good faith the company extended an offer to cover the related property damage at 80% liability, as well as 80% of the rental that had been taken out at the onset of the claimThe complainant was provided a copy of this offer in writingThere has been no additional contact from the complainant to date Accordingly our claim remains open pending acceptance of the good faith offer presented to the complainantBased on the aforementioned we feel we have handled this claim properly in accordance with the claims handling laws in the state of Illinois Respectfully, Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: 708-***-***
November 17, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: [redacted] Consumer: Jessica [redacted] Policy Inception Date: 3/18/ Date of Loss: 10/2/ Our Claim Number: I [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: While the complainant’s rebuttal is somewhat confusing, we believe we have already addressed the issue at handThe complainant failed to notify the company she was involved in a prior at fault accident upon purchasing her policy of insuranceThe complainant purchased the policy over the phoneThe writing producer specifically asked if the complainant was involved in any prior accidents in which the complainant advised she had none Based on our findings, the complainant’s policy of insurance was rescinded based on conditions section of the policy, due to material misrepresentation of the undisclosed at fault losses In her rebuttal, the complainant suggests she never signed her application for insurance as it contained incorrect information; however, we find no evidence of the company previously receiving any correspondence or communication from the complainant concerning the alleged misinformation until after the loss and our claims investigationThe complainant has not presented any new or relevant evidence for the company to considerTo the contrary, the company has secured a statement from the agent of the complainants choice confirming that not only were all application questions asked of the complainant, but also that all answers were recorded as provided by the complainant In closing, we feel we have addressed all the concerns presented by the complainant and again, feel that we have acted properly in our handling of this matter Therefore the company stands by our position in this matter Sincerely, Joseph Mase Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me My only question is when the process of refund will be applied and how As of right now I have no receive any sort of refund of $ Sincerely, Stephanie [redacted]
January 13, Revdex.com of Chicago and Northern Illinois NWabash Ave, SteChicago, IL RE: Our Claim Number: ILV Consumer: Lori A*** Case Number: Date of Loss: 10/12/Dear Revdex.com: While we understand that the denial of a claim or any portion thereof may not be well received, the company has acted appropriately when guided by its legal responsibilityWe have previously stated our position and remain by sameSincerely, James V*** Director of Claims Phone: (708) 552-j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com
Our obligation
as an insurer is to pay only if our insured was legally liable for causing the
lossWe are guided by all information available to us, including our insured's
statement, in order to properly investigate the matter and determine liability
Until we are able to consult with our
insured, the company is in no position to
confirm coverage and determine liabilityIn this instance
once statements from both parties of the loss were secured, certain
discrepancies where noted which warranted additional contact with the
complainantThrough the
continuation of these efforts, the potential
discrepancy was resolved and appropriate payment was issued resolving the
property damage concern, which was the basis for the complainants writing
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:This company did nothing for weeks while my daughter car sat at *** *** ***, they man there said they never received a check was given the run around as wellNobody done anything until after I filed this complaint, then they wanted to call talking about the car is now a total lossThey could have made that decision weeks earlier and my daughter could have been looking for another carThe Juan gentleman who is the adjuster, was so unprofessional, with asking why did I take it to *** *** in the first place, cause you gave her weeks to find a placeNow we wait to see how long it takes them to pay the car off, so my daughter can get another oneI will be switching insurance company, because I have never dealt with this type is service
Sincerely,
Dwayne Ray
June 12, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID Number:
Consumer: Tasha *** Claim Number: WIM30051 Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, The complainant’s vehicle, a Honda Acord, was deemed a total loss as a result of the above captioned lossOn 5/3/the company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $1,should she surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $The complainant indicated she would surrender the vehicle to the company and accepted the offerThat same date the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder and requested a letter of guarantee and a copy of the titleThe company also requested the complainant complete and return a Power of Attorney FormIt was explained to the complainant that no payment would be issued until all total loss documents were received On 5/17/the company received the letter of guarantee from the lien holder, *** Bank, as well as an application for vehicle titleThe company reached out to the lien holder who advised that the vehicle owner/complainant had the actual vehicle title On 5/22/the company spoke with the complainant whom indicated she did not hold her vehicle title and was under the impression it was in her lien holder’s possessionOn 5/23/the company received the completed Power of Attorney form from the complainantThat same day the company again spoke with the lien holder, *** Bank, who advised they did not have the complainant’s title and would request it from the Department of Motor Vehicles On 6/6/the company again spoke with the complainant and explained the need for a copy of the vehicle titleThe company explained that per the Wisconsin’s Department of Motor Vehicle website, she as the vehicle owner would be able to apply online for a duplicate titleThe complainant indicated she would look into the matter further Furthermore, while the complainant mentions that the state of Wisconsin is a title holding state, the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicle website indicates that “Starting July 30, 2012, Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began delivering titles to lien holders consistent with recent statute changesAny title with a lien (loan) listed on or after July 30, is sent to the lien holderLien holders may receive titles in a paper or electronic formatOwners of vehicles receive a Confirmation of Ownership and will receive the actual title when all liens are paid off.” When searching the complainants’ vehicle identification number, state records indicate the title was delivered electronically to the complainant’s lien holder on 2/17/ Based on the aforementioned, we feel we have acted properly in our handling of this claim and find that the only reason that this matter has not yet to be concluded is due to the complainant / complainant’s lien holder inability to produce a copy of the vehicle title At this time, our file remains open pending a copy of the requested informationUpon receipt of said documents, a total loss settlement draft will be issued, ultimately concluding this matter Respectfully, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
This is to inform you that complaint ID *** has been successfully resolvedFirst Chicago Insurance has agreed to pay for
the damages caused by their client
Sincerely,
Steve ***
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Not only did they send out a form stating another body shop would be fixing it they wouldn’t send out another statement saying that J.D Byrider will be receiving the check to fix the damagesTherefore my car will not be fixed nor will the car parts be ordered until J.D Byrider receives the checkMaking it over a month that I’ve been without my carThe reason I feel like the time it took for all of this to process is unacceptable is because my aunt who is with another insurance company & needed body damages fixed took care of her situation right awayAll within a weekI feel like they could’ve done a better job with handling this situation & I hope they’re not handling all of their claims this wayThis is ridiculous.
Sincerely,
Lyric ***
March 20, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID#:
*** Consumer: Al-nissah *** Policy Number: *** Dear Revdex.com, The policy was issued effective 12/17/for Ms*** and a Buick Rendezvous. On 2/13/an additional auto, Chevrolet Cruze, was added to the policy by Ms***’s agent. A down payment is required anytime a premium endorsement is processed. Our system generated the additional premium invoice for $which includes a $installment fee to be due on 3/5/17. On 2/14/the Chevrolet Cruze was removed by Ms***’s agent. The policy cancelled due to non- payment since the endorsement down payment was not received. Unfortunately, Ms*** did not contact the company in regards to the outstanding bill or cancel prior to the cancel date. We first received contact from her on 3/9/after the vehicle was repossessed. The company is not responsible for the charges incurred as a result of the repossession. Sincerely, Heather *** Vice President of Personal Auto Underwriting Phone: ***
December 20, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint#: *** Consumer:
Lyric *** Claim Number: ***
The complainant reported this loss to the company on 11/20/The complainant reported that on 11/18/at 11:00p.m she had hit a curb; the resulting damage left her vehicle inoperable and it was towedThe complainant was advised the claim would be assigned to an adjuster to investigate as this loss occurred only several hours after the inception of the policy On 11/21/the company spoke with the complainant and secured her recorded statementMs*** stated that on the morning of 11/18/she had purchased a Chevrolet Impala from J.D Byrider; the vehicle was financed with no other parties on her loanThe complainant stated later that evening around 11:00p.m she was traveling on Independence Blvd and was preparing to make a right hand turn onto Polk when another vehicle to her left also attempted to make a right turn from the left hand laneThe complainant stated she sped up to complete her turn and avoid this other vehicle when she ended up striking the curbAfter the impact the complainant had a donut tire installed to her vehicleLater that evening while she was driving home after the loss, the donut tire had blownoutThe complainant called for a tow and the vehicle was towed to the dealershipThe company requested from the complainant a copy of the bill of sale for the vehicle as well as a copy of the tow receipt in attempt to confirm the date and time of loss as the incident was not reported to the policeArrangements were also made for an appraiser to inspect the vehicle On 11/30/the company received from the complainant a copy of the complainant’s bill of sale which confirms the complainant had purchased the Chevrolet Impala on 11/18/with a time stamp of 3:11p.mThe company also received a copy of the tow invoice dated 11/19/at 4:50a.mThe company confirmed the policy was in force and that coverage was applicable for the loss On 12/6/the company received an estimate on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $1,001.34, less the complainant’s applicable deductible as well as a betterment charge of $for tire replacement, leaving a net estimate amount of $That same day the company spoke with the complainant; Ms*** confirmed she was having her vehicle repaired at the dealership, JD ByriderThe company contacted the repair facility and requested they fax a completed W-form for payment to be issuedThe company spoke with the repair facility again on 12/and 12/12/as the completed form had not been receivedOn 12/14/the company received the completed W-form and the settlement draft was issued To date, there has been no further contact from the complainantBased on the aforementioned, we feel we have acted fairly in reconciling this claim with no delays on behalf of the companyWe feel that any delay in concluding this matter falls directly on the complainant’s repair facility for not returning the requested W-form until nine (9) days after it was requested Respectfully, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
September 15, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: ***
Consumer: *** *** Claim Number: *** Dear Revdex.com: The complainant’s vehicle, a *** ** was involved in a collision on 6/29/On 7/12/an estimate was received on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $2,less the applicable $deductible leaving a net estimate of $2,The vehicle was determined to be repairableIt was not until 8/12/the complainant advised he would be having his vehicle repaired at *** *** ***; at which time a settlement draft was issued and the estimate was faxed to the repair facilityOn 9/2/the repair facility contacted the company advising additional damages were found resulting in the vehicle being deemed a total loss On 9/8/the company spoke with the complainant and advised the additional damages deemed the vehicle totaledThe company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $5,should he surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $4,775.16. On 9/9/the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder who advised the complainant still owed $7,on the vehicle loan; therefore an owner retained settlement was not an option. The company requested a letter of guarantee and a copy of the title from the lien holder for the First Chicago retained offer of $5,The company also spoke with the complainant this date and requested they release the vehicle to the company so the salvage may be movedThe company also requested the complainant complete and return a Power of Attorney form on this date Based on the aforementioned, we clearly not only advised the complainant that their vehicle was beyond that of economic repair, but also of the additional requirements needed in order to conclude this matterAt this time, our file remains open, pending the requested information from the complainant, as well as his lien holderUpon receipt of said documents, a total loss settlement draft will be issued, ultimately concluding this matter Sincerely,
*** *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
October 31, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: ***
Consumer: Jessica *** Policy Inception Date: 3/18/ Date of Loss: 10/2/ Our Claim Number: *** Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: The complainant’s vehicle was involved in a collision on 10/2/During the course of the claims investigation it was discovered the complainant had been involved in prior at fault accidents which were not disclosed to the company when the complainant completed her application for insuranceThe company was unable to honor the claim for this reason as the complainant’s policy was rescinded based on the conditions section of the policySpecifically, the policy states in part: Conditions Misrepresentation a) If at any time during the first policy period, or year; whichever is less, we become aware of a misrepresentation that would have made the risk ineligible or resulted in a higher premium charge, the policy will be rescinded and annulled. On 10/19/a premium refund check was mailed to the complainantBased on the conditions section of the policy, we believe we have acted accordingly in our handling of this claim Sincerely, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
August 18, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Case Number:
Consumer: Angel *** Our Claim Number: INV Date of Loss: 7/2/ Dear Revdex.com: The complainant’s vehicle, a *** ***, was deemed a total loss as a result of the above mentioned lossOn 8/11/the company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $3,should she surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $2,should she decide to keep the salvaged vehicleSaid offer was determined through the utilization of a widely accepted independent source, CCCThe same date the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder who advised Ms*** still owed $5,on the vehicle loan To date, after several communications with the complainant, Ms*** has expressed she is not accepting the total loss offer as it will not pay off her total outstanding loanThe company explained to the complainant that in the event of a total loss, the company is only obligated to pay the actual cash value of the vehicle which may not always cover the amount of the loanThis would be the purpose of GAP insurance, which the complainant may or may not have available to her At this time, while unfortunate that the complainant may be upside down in her vehicle from a financial perspective, the company believes that it has acted properly when utilizing a widely accepted independent source to determine the value of the complainants’ vehicle. Currently our claim remains open pending acceptance of the total loss offer Sincerely, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: 708-552-
June 16, Revdex.com NWabash, SteChicago IL 60611-RE: Your File No.:
*** Complainant: *** *** Our Claim No.: *** Date of Loss: 05/12/ Insured: D*** *** To Whom It May Concern: Please allow this to serve as our response to the complaint filed by *** *** This loss occurred when the insured backed into the complainant’s parked motorcycle causing damageAn independent appraiser inspected the complainant’s motorcycle and submitted an estimate in the amount of $2,less a betterment deduction of $leaving a net amount of $1,The appraiser indicated there were prior scuffs and damages to the vehicle; therefore a betterment charge was appliedThe company related an offer of 100% of the net damages to the complainant which was not acceptedThe complainant did not agree with the betterment charge, nor was he in agreement with the written labor rate of $35/hour The company advised the complainant that it was not required to compensate him for damages or wear and tear documented to have previously existed on his vehicle prior to the loss occurringHowever, in attempt to resolve this matter, a concession was made wherein the company revised the estimate reducing the betterment charge and increasing the labor rate to that of $50/hourAs such the company extended a revised offer to the complainant for 100% of the revised estimate being $2,less a reduced betterment of $for a net offer of $1,At this time, the complainant advised he is not accepting the revised offer as he wanted to obtain his own estimates for comparison. Based on the aforementioned we believe that we have fairly in our assessment of the loss related damages as well as that of the pre- existing damagesAt this time, our offer remains available to the complainant should he wish to accept same Sincerely, *** *** Vice President of Claims *** ***
May 17, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Avenue, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID Number: *** To Whom It May Concern, Please be advised that we are in receipt of the above subject
inquiry to the Revdex.com Unfortunately at this time, after multiple system searches, no claim or policy number was located which could be associated with the complainantAccordingly, the company has reached out to the complainant via both telephone and e-mail and have had no responseTherefore at this time, this leads us to believe the complainant may have possibly misdirected this complaint to the incorrect company. Should information to the contrary come to light, we will be more than happy to review sameRespectfully, *** *** Vice President of Claims Phone: *** j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com
January 12, Revdex.com of Chicago and Northern Illinois NWabash Ave, SteChicago, IL RE: Our Claim Number: ***
Consumer: Lori A*** Case Number: Date of Loss: 10/12/Dear Revdex.com: The complainant submitted a paid rental invoice for reimbursementThe complainant rented a vehicle for days, with the total bill equating to that of $1,of which $was paid for additional insurance coveragesThe company spoke with and informed the complainant on numerous occasions that we would REIMBURSE (which is acknowledged in the complainant’s statement to the Revdex.com) the complainant for rental expenses, however said REIMBURSEMENT was not to exceed $per dayThe complainant rented a vehicle for days at a weekly rate which when converted to a daily rate equated to $per dayThis amount was the basis for the company’s reimbursementThe company reimbursed the complainant $(the full days at $18.65/daily rate inclusive of tax and recovery fee)The company did not consider reimbursement of $as the company is not required to reimburse the complainant for the purchase of additional insurance coverages offered by the rental facility for the purpose of covering the rental vehicleThese coverage’s are optional and not necessary to rent a vehicle unless the vehicle withdrawn from service did not have coverage that would be transferable to the rental vehicleAccording to our records, we believe that the complainants vehicle did have such transferable coverage with AAA Insurance Company, thus eliminating the need for additional insurance protection to be purchased directly from the rental agencyWith this being said, the optional insurance coverage the complainant purchased for the rental vehicle is not considered to be reasonable or necessaryThe complainant has been advised of this on numerous occasionsTo date we believe that we have acted appropriately in that we have fully paid for the loss related repairs to the complainant’s vehicle and reimbursed the complainant only the necessary incurred rental expensesSincerely, James V*** Director of Claims Phone: (708) 552-j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com
November 10, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois Complaint ID#: [redacted] Consumer: Stephanie [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: The Complainant’s agent called the company on 10/31/inquiring as to why the complainant was still receiving invoices since she had requested to have policy cancelledIt was explained to agent that we had not received any call or had any contact with complainant regarding a request to cancel The agent submitted proof of replacement coverage with an effective date of 9/25/7:PM and indicated complainant would submit signed request to cancel The signed request to cancel was received on 11/1/ The cancelation was processed on 11/2/with a 9/26/effective date A refund payment has been processed to the complainant in the amount of $ Given that the company did not receive any prior request to cancel the policy, we believe we have acted appropriately when finally receiving the request for cancellation on 11/1/ Respectfully, Heather [redacted] VP of [redacted] Phone: [redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: First Chicago never told me that they would be holding my car for a month before inspecting it and telling if they was going to take care of it They did not contact me with this cost until a month later and after I went to the shop and realize they are located next door to the shop they towed the car to I had no problem in taking care of the cost myself seeing that is exactly what I did The problem is they towed it to the shop of their choice and held it saying that have to check it out as if the shop was not right next door They could have just told me early and not month after the fact that they was not going to cover it Also did not tell me this until I contacted the Revdex.com with a complaint I realized who what type of company I was dealing with when I read the reviews a few days ago I now understand the power of reserch before purchasing insurance Not to mention during this time this company continue to collect a payment from me, which could have went towards my car And as far as no insurance before.....Let the record show that I explained to the agent when I bought the policy that I had been on bed rest do to having a new baby It was not that I just didn't having insurance Sincerely, Porsha [redacted]
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/08/11) */ August 11, Revdex.com NWabash Ave, Ste Chicago, IL XXXXX RE: Our Claim Number: ILVXXXXX Our Insured/Consumer: Eddie [redacted] Complaint Case Number: XXXXXXXX Dear RevDex.com: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by Eddie [redacted] This claim was reported to our company on 6/29/and involves the theft of complainant's Jeep Liberty which was to have occurred on 6/27/The vehicle was recovered and we arranged to have it inspected by one of our appraisers so an estimate of damages could be preparedSaid inspection occurred on 6/29/ As part of the claim process, we forwarded the complainant our Affidavit of Theft on 6/30/The police report for this loss was requested, however was unavailable even as of 7/24/15, when we took the initiative to personally send a representative of the company to the Central Records Office of the [redacted] Department Mr [redacted] returned his Affidavit to us on 7/27/Further communication with a representative of the CPD indicated that a filing error may have been responsible for the report being unavailable at the time of request, however, confirmed that report HYXXXXXX was, indeed, a theft report for Mr [redacted] At this time we will be proceeding with settlement on this claim and have arranged for Mr [redacted] to take his vehicle to a company approved facility or into the repair facility of his choice should they honor our repair estimate While we regret that this claim was not concluded as quickly as the complainant had hoped or anticipated, the securing of a police report was a necessary step in the validation of the claim and coverageIn addition we note that it took the complainant approximately days to return the completed Affidavit of TheftUnfortunately in this instance this process was delayed for reasons beyond our control as indicated aboveIn conclusion, we believe that this matter is now concludedIf you have any questions, please contact me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX Sincerely, James [redacted] Director of Claims [redacted] @firstchicagoinsurance.com
January 23, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID#: [redacted] Our Claim No.: [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: Please allow this to serve as our response to the complaint filed by Nancy [redacted] This loss was reported to the company by the complainant on 12/26/At that time the complainant reported that our insured failed to stop at a stop sign and the driver of the complainant vehicle was unable to avoid the collision, causing damage to the front driver side of their vehicleThe complainant further reported to the company that their vehicle was not drivable due to the damagesThe company explained that in the event a vehicle is non drivable that an appraiser would be sent out for an inspection of the damagesWorking under the assumption that the vehicle was non drivable, the company explained that rental is on a reimbursement basis up to $per day which would be reviewed for reimbursement upon receipt of the paid invoice Upon further review of the claim, it was determined that the complainant vehicle was in fact drivableThe vehicle was driven from the scene with minor damage to the front driver side including the headlightThe Elmwood Park police (who the complainant’s husband is a former member) were on scene to file a report deemed the vehicle safe for operation on the roadway and allowed the complainant driver to leave the scene without requesting a towOn 12/29/the company attempted to reach out to the complainant and advise of the new findings, a voice message was left requesting return contact On 12/29/the company spoke with our insured driver who stated that he was traveling north bound on 76th stapproaching a stop signThe insured came to a complete stop, then began to proceed across Armitage AveThe complainant who was traveling on Armitage then struck the insured vehicle near the rear driver’s side wheel causing minimal damages to both vehiclesThe insured stated that he attempted to speed up across the intersection to avoid the incident but was still struck near the rear of his vehicle by the front end of the complainant vehicle On 1/4/the complainant contacted the company requesting status on an inspection of the vehicleAt this time it was explained to the complainant that the vehicle would in fact be considered drivable and it was requested that the vehicle be taken to an inspection location in their areaThe complainant was scheduled for an inspection in the morning/early afternoon of 1/5/so that the company could assess the damages The company spoke with the complainant driver on 1/4/18, wherein she stated that she was traveling on Armitage Avewhen our insured driver failed to stop at a posted stop signIt was at this time the complainant front driver side struck the rear driver side of the insured vehicleThe complainant stated that at the time there was a light snow which was accumulating on the roadway On 1/5/the company spoke again with the complainant and advised that the vehicle does appear to be drivable according to police on scene reports and statements from the involved driversThe company advised that if when presented at the inspection the appraiser felt the vehicle was inoperable then we would allow the vehicle to be left at the location and transportation assistance would be provided in getting to a nearby rental facilityThe company then explained to the complainant that rental is on a reimbursement basis of $daily which would be reviewed once the vehicle has been deemed inoperable or once the vehicle is disabled due to repairs The complainant estimate was received totaling $in damages to the front driver side of the complainant vehicleThe company reached out to the complainant to discuss resolution of the claim, unfortunately the phone rang twice and went silent on multiple attempts leaving no option of a voice message system The complainant returned the call and was advised that the company would be accepting 50% liability based on the complainants duty to act as a defensive driver and maintain a proper lookout when operating the vehicleIt was also noted to the complainant of her duty as a driver to maintain control of her vehicle in weather conditionsThe insured vehicle had nearly made it across the intersection prior to being struck in the rear driver sideThe complainant did not accept the liability determination at that time and the offer was sent in writing The company contacted the complainant to discuss the claim in hopes of coming to a fair resolutionIn good faith the company extended an offer to cover the related property damage at 80% liability, as well as 80% of the rental that had been taken out at the onset of the claimThe complainant was provided a copy of this offer in writingThere has been no additional contact from the complainant to date Accordingly our claim remains open pending acceptance of the good faith offer presented to the complainantBased on the aforementioned we feel we have handled this claim properly in accordance with the claims handling laws in the state of Illinois Respectfully, Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: 708-***-***
November 17, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: [redacted] Consumer: Jessica [redacted] Policy Inception Date: 3/18/ Date of Loss: 10/2/ Our Claim Number: I [redacted] Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: While the complainant’s rebuttal is somewhat confusing, we believe we have already addressed the issue at handThe complainant failed to notify the company she was involved in a prior at fault accident upon purchasing her policy of insuranceThe complainant purchased the policy over the phoneThe writing producer specifically asked if the complainant was involved in any prior accidents in which the complainant advised she had none Based on our findings, the complainant’s policy of insurance was rescinded based on conditions section of the policy, due to material misrepresentation of the undisclosed at fault losses In her rebuttal, the complainant suggests she never signed her application for insurance as it contained incorrect information; however, we find no evidence of the company previously receiving any correspondence or communication from the complainant concerning the alleged misinformation until after the loss and our claims investigationThe complainant has not presented any new or relevant evidence for the company to considerTo the contrary, the company has secured a statement from the agent of the complainants choice confirming that not only were all application questions asked of the complainant, but also that all answers were recorded as provided by the complainant In closing, we feel we have addressed all the concerns presented by the complainant and again, feel that we have acted properly in our handling of this matter Therefore the company stands by our position in this matter Sincerely, Joseph Mase Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me My only question is when the process of refund will be applied and how As of right now I have no receive any sort of refund of $ Sincerely, Stephanie [redacted]
January 13, Revdex.com of Chicago and Northern Illinois NWabash Ave, SteChicago, IL RE: Our Claim Number: ILV Consumer: Lori A*** Case Number: Date of Loss: 10/12/Dear Revdex.com: While we understand that the denial of a claim or any portion thereof may not be well received, the company has acted appropriately when guided by its legal responsibilityWe have previously stated our position and remain by sameSincerely, James V*** Director of Claims Phone: (708) 552-j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com
Our obligation
as an insurer is to pay only if our insured was legally liable for causing the
lossWe are guided by all information available to us, including our insured's
statement, in order to properly investigate the matter and determine liability
Until we are able to consult with our
insured, the company is in no position to
confirm coverage and determine liabilityIn this instance
once statements from both parties of the loss were secured, certain
discrepancies where noted which warranted additional contact with the
complainantThrough the
continuation of these efforts, the potential
discrepancy was resolved and appropriate payment was issued resolving the
property damage concern, which was the basis for the complainants writing
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:This company did nothing for weeks while my daughter car sat at *** *** ***, they man there said they never received a check was given the run around as wellNobody done anything until after I filed this complaint, then they wanted to call talking about the car is now a total lossThey could have made that decision weeks earlier and my daughter could have been looking for another carThe Juan gentleman who is the adjuster, was so unprofessional, with asking why did I take it to *** *** in the first place, cause you gave her weeks to find a placeNow we wait to see how long it takes them to pay the car off, so my daughter can get another oneI will be switching insurance company, because I have never dealt with this type is service
Sincerely,
Dwayne Ray
June 12, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID Number:
Consumer: Tasha *** Claim Number: WIM30051 Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, The complainant’s vehicle, a Honda Acord, was deemed a total loss as a result of the above captioned lossOn 5/3/the company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $1,should she surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $The complainant indicated she would surrender the vehicle to the company and accepted the offerThat same date the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder and requested a letter of guarantee and a copy of the titleThe company also requested the complainant complete and return a Power of Attorney FormIt was explained to the complainant that no payment would be issued until all total loss documents were received On 5/17/the company received the letter of guarantee from the lien holder, *** Bank, as well as an application for vehicle titleThe company reached out to the lien holder who advised that the vehicle owner/complainant had the actual vehicle title On 5/22/the company spoke with the complainant whom indicated she did not hold her vehicle title and was under the impression it was in her lien holder’s possessionOn 5/23/the company received the completed Power of Attorney form from the complainantThat same day the company again spoke with the lien holder, *** Bank, who advised they did not have the complainant’s title and would request it from the Department of Motor Vehicles On 6/6/the company again spoke with the complainant and explained the need for a copy of the vehicle titleThe company explained that per the Wisconsin’s Department of Motor Vehicle website, she as the vehicle owner would be able to apply online for a duplicate titleThe complainant indicated she would look into the matter further Furthermore, while the complainant mentions that the state of Wisconsin is a title holding state, the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicle website indicates that “Starting July 30, 2012, Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began delivering titles to lien holders consistent with recent statute changesAny title with a lien (loan) listed on or after July 30, is sent to the lien holderLien holders may receive titles in a paper or electronic formatOwners of vehicles receive a Confirmation of Ownership and will receive the actual title when all liens are paid off.” When searching the complainants’ vehicle identification number, state records indicate the title was delivered electronically to the complainant’s lien holder on 2/17/ Based on the aforementioned, we feel we have acted properly in our handling of this claim and find that the only reason that this matter has not yet to be concluded is due to the complainant / complainant’s lien holder inability to produce a copy of the vehicle title At this time, our file remains open pending a copy of the requested informationUpon receipt of said documents, a total loss settlement draft will be issued, ultimately concluding this matter Respectfully, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
This is to inform you that complaint ID *** has been successfully resolvedFirst Chicago Insurance has agreed to pay for
the damages caused by their client
Sincerely,
Steve ***
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Not only did they send out a form stating another body shop would be fixing it they wouldn’t send out another statement saying that J.D Byrider will be receiving the check to fix the damagesTherefore my car will not be fixed nor will the car parts be ordered until J.D Byrider receives the checkMaking it over a month that I’ve been without my carThe reason I feel like the time it took for all of this to process is unacceptable is because my aunt who is with another insurance company & needed body damages fixed took care of her situation right awayAll within a weekI feel like they could’ve done a better job with handling this situation & I hope they’re not handling all of their claims this wayThis is ridiculous.
Sincerely,
Lyric ***
March 20, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID#:
*** Consumer: Al-nissah *** Policy Number: *** Dear Revdex.com, The policy was issued effective 12/17/for Ms*** and a Buick Rendezvous. On 2/13/an additional auto, Chevrolet Cruze, was added to the policy by Ms***’s agent. A down payment is required anytime a premium endorsement is processed. Our system generated the additional premium invoice for $which includes a $installment fee to be due on 3/5/17. On 2/14/the Chevrolet Cruze was removed by Ms***’s agent. The policy cancelled due to non- payment since the endorsement down payment was not received. Unfortunately, Ms*** did not contact the company in regards to the outstanding bill or cancel prior to the cancel date. We first received contact from her on 3/9/after the vehicle was repossessed. The company is not responsible for the charges incurred as a result of the repossession. Sincerely, Heather *** Vice President of Personal Auto Underwriting Phone: ***
December 20, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint#: *** Consumer:
Lyric *** Claim Number: ***
The complainant reported this loss to the company on 11/20/The complainant reported that on 11/18/at 11:00p.m she had hit a curb; the resulting damage left her vehicle inoperable and it was towedThe complainant was advised the claim would be assigned to an adjuster to investigate as this loss occurred only several hours after the inception of the policy On 11/21/the company spoke with the complainant and secured her recorded statementMs*** stated that on the morning of 11/18/she had purchased a Chevrolet Impala from J.D Byrider; the vehicle was financed with no other parties on her loanThe complainant stated later that evening around 11:00p.m she was traveling on Independence Blvd and was preparing to make a right hand turn onto Polk when another vehicle to her left also attempted to make a right turn from the left hand laneThe complainant stated she sped up to complete her turn and avoid this other vehicle when she ended up striking the curbAfter the impact the complainant had a donut tire installed to her vehicleLater that evening while she was driving home after the loss, the donut tire had blownoutThe complainant called for a tow and the vehicle was towed to the dealershipThe company requested from the complainant a copy of the bill of sale for the vehicle as well as a copy of the tow receipt in attempt to confirm the date and time of loss as the incident was not reported to the policeArrangements were also made for an appraiser to inspect the vehicle On 11/30/the company received from the complainant a copy of the complainant’s bill of sale which confirms the complainant had purchased the Chevrolet Impala on 11/18/with a time stamp of 3:11p.mThe company also received a copy of the tow invoice dated 11/19/at 4:50a.mThe company confirmed the policy was in force and that coverage was applicable for the loss On 12/6/the company received an estimate on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $1,001.34, less the complainant’s applicable deductible as well as a betterment charge of $for tire replacement, leaving a net estimate amount of $That same day the company spoke with the complainant; Ms*** confirmed she was having her vehicle repaired at the dealership, JD ByriderThe company contacted the repair facility and requested they fax a completed W-form for payment to be issuedThe company spoke with the repair facility again on 12/and 12/12/as the completed form had not been receivedOn 12/14/the company received the completed W-form and the settlement draft was issued To date, there has been no further contact from the complainantBased on the aforementioned, we feel we have acted fairly in reconciling this claim with no delays on behalf of the companyWe feel that any delay in concluding this matter falls directly on the complainant’s repair facility for not returning the requested W-form until nine (9) days after it was requested Respectfully, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
September 15, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: ***
Consumer: *** *** Claim Number: *** Dear Revdex.com: The complainant’s vehicle, a *** ** was involved in a collision on 6/29/On 7/12/an estimate was received on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $2,less the applicable $deductible leaving a net estimate of $2,The vehicle was determined to be repairableIt was not until 8/12/the complainant advised he would be having his vehicle repaired at *** *** ***; at which time a settlement draft was issued and the estimate was faxed to the repair facilityOn 9/2/the repair facility contacted the company advising additional damages were found resulting in the vehicle being deemed a total loss On 9/8/the company spoke with the complainant and advised the additional damages deemed the vehicle totaledThe company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $5,should he surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $4,775.16. On 9/9/the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder who advised the complainant still owed $7,on the vehicle loan; therefore an owner retained settlement was not an option. The company requested a letter of guarantee and a copy of the title from the lien holder for the First Chicago retained offer of $5,The company also spoke with the complainant this date and requested they release the vehicle to the company so the salvage may be movedThe company also requested the complainant complete and return a Power of Attorney form on this date Based on the aforementioned, we clearly not only advised the complainant that their vehicle was beyond that of economic repair, but also of the additional requirements needed in order to conclude this matterAt this time, our file remains open, pending the requested information from the complainant, as well as his lien holderUpon receipt of said documents, a total loss settlement draft will be issued, ultimately concluding this matter Sincerely,
*** *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
October 31, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint Number: ***
Consumer: Jessica *** Policy Inception Date: 3/18/ Date of Loss: 10/2/ Our Claim Number: *** Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois: The complainant’s vehicle was involved in a collision on 10/2/During the course of the claims investigation it was discovered the complainant had been involved in prior at fault accidents which were not disclosed to the company when the complainant completed her application for insuranceThe company was unable to honor the claim for this reason as the complainant’s policy was rescinded based on the conditions section of the policySpecifically, the policy states in part: Conditions Misrepresentation a) If at any time during the first policy period, or year; whichever is less, we become aware of a misrepresentation that would have made the risk ineligible or resulted in a higher premium charge, the policy will be rescinded and annulled. On 10/19/a premium refund check was mailed to the complainantBased on the conditions section of the policy, we believe we have acted accordingly in our handling of this claim Sincerely, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: ***
August 18, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc North Wabash Ave, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Case Number:
Consumer: Angel *** Our Claim Number: INV Date of Loss: 7/2/ Dear Revdex.com: The complainant’s vehicle, a *** ***, was deemed a total loss as a result of the above mentioned lossOn 8/11/the company relayed an offer to the complainant in the amount of $3,should she surrender the vehicle to the company, or an owner retained offer in the amount of $2,should she decide to keep the salvaged vehicleSaid offer was determined through the utilization of a widely accepted independent source, CCCThe same date the company spoke with the complainant’s lien holder who advised Ms*** still owed $5,on the vehicle loan To date, after several communications with the complainant, Ms*** has expressed she is not accepting the total loss offer as it will not pay off her total outstanding loanThe company explained to the complainant that in the event of a total loss, the company is only obligated to pay the actual cash value of the vehicle which may not always cover the amount of the loanThis would be the purpose of GAP insurance, which the complainant may or may not have available to her At this time, while unfortunate that the complainant may be upside down in her vehicle from a financial perspective, the company believes that it has acted properly when utilizing a widely accepted independent source to determine the value of the complainants’ vehicle. Currently our claim remains open pending acceptance of the total loss offer Sincerely, Joseph *** Vice President of Claims Phone: 708-552-
June 16, Revdex.com NWabash, SteChicago IL 60611-RE: Your File No.:
*** Complainant: *** *** Our Claim No.: *** Date of Loss: 05/12/ Insured: D*** *** To Whom It May Concern: Please allow this to serve as our response to the complaint filed by *** *** This loss occurred when the insured backed into the complainant’s parked motorcycle causing damageAn independent appraiser inspected the complainant’s motorcycle and submitted an estimate in the amount of $2,less a betterment deduction of $leaving a net amount of $1,The appraiser indicated there were prior scuffs and damages to the vehicle; therefore a betterment charge was appliedThe company related an offer of 100% of the net damages to the complainant which was not acceptedThe complainant did not agree with the betterment charge, nor was he in agreement with the written labor rate of $35/hour The company advised the complainant that it was not required to compensate him for damages or wear and tear documented to have previously existed on his vehicle prior to the loss occurringHowever, in attempt to resolve this matter, a concession was made wherein the company revised the estimate reducing the betterment charge and increasing the labor rate to that of $50/hourAs such the company extended a revised offer to the complainant for 100% of the revised estimate being $2,less a reduced betterment of $for a net offer of $1,At this time, the complainant advised he is not accepting the revised offer as he wanted to obtain his own estimates for comparison. Based on the aforementioned we believe that we have fairly in our assessment of the loss related damages as well as that of the pre- existing damagesAt this time, our offer remains available to the complainant should he wish to accept same Sincerely, *** *** Vice President of Claims *** ***
May 17, Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, IncNorth Wabash Avenue, Suite Chicago, Illinois RE: Complaint ID Number: *** To Whom It May Concern, Please be advised that we are in receipt of the above subject
inquiry to the Revdex.com Unfortunately at this time, after multiple system searches, no claim or policy number was located which could be associated with the complainantAccordingly, the company has reached out to the complainant via both telephone and e-mail and have had no responseTherefore at this time, this leads us to believe the complainant may have possibly misdirected this complaint to the incorrect company. Should information to the contrary come to light, we will be more than happy to review sameRespectfully, *** *** Vice President of Claims Phone: *** j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com
January 12, Revdex.com of Chicago and Northern Illinois NWabash Ave, SteChicago, IL RE: Our Claim Number: ***
Consumer: Lori A*** Case Number: Date of Loss: 10/12/Dear Revdex.com: The complainant submitted a paid rental invoice for reimbursementThe complainant rented a vehicle for days, with the total bill equating to that of $1,of which $was paid for additional insurance coveragesThe company spoke with and informed the complainant on numerous occasions that we would REIMBURSE (which is acknowledged in the complainant’s statement to the Revdex.com) the complainant for rental expenses, however said REIMBURSEMENT was not to exceed $per dayThe complainant rented a vehicle for days at a weekly rate which when converted to a daily rate equated to $per dayThis amount was the basis for the company’s reimbursementThe company reimbursed the complainant $(the full days at $18.65/daily rate inclusive of tax and recovery fee)The company did not consider reimbursement of $as the company is not required to reimburse the complainant for the purchase of additional insurance coverages offered by the rental facility for the purpose of covering the rental vehicleThese coverage’s are optional and not necessary to rent a vehicle unless the vehicle withdrawn from service did not have coverage that would be transferable to the rental vehicleAccording to our records, we believe that the complainants vehicle did have such transferable coverage with AAA Insurance Company, thus eliminating the need for additional insurance protection to be purchased directly from the rental agencyWith this being said, the optional insurance coverage the complainant purchased for the rental vehicle is not considered to be reasonable or necessaryThe complainant has been advised of this on numerous occasionsTo date we believe that we have acted appropriately in that we have fully paid for the loss related repairs to the complainant’s vehicle and reimbursed the complainant only the necessary incurred rental expensesSincerely, James V*** Director of Claims Phone: (708) 552-j***@firstchicagoinsurance.com