Gus Wallpapering & Home Decorating

P

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 based on the 90percent amount for the car damages only
Sincerely,
Nancy ***

March 28, 2018     Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc. 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:          Complaint Number:        [redacted]...

                Our Claim Number:         [redacted]   Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc.:   The complainant reported the loss to the company on 3/1/18. The complainant reported that on 2/25/18 she discovered there was wiring damage to her vehicle caused by rodents. The complainant advised her vehicle was located at [redacted] Dealership. The company made arrangements to secure the vehicle to one of its direct repair facilities for an inspection. It was explained to the complainant the claim would be assigned to an adjuster for investigation as this loss occurred within nineteen (19) days of the policy inception.   On 3/7/18 the company called the insured for a recorded statement, there was no answer and a call back message was left. The complainant returned the call to the company on 3/12/18 and provided a statement. The complainant confirmed that she was the registered owner of her vehicle, a 2014 [redacted], which she was currently financing. The complainant stated she purchased the vehicle in 2015. The complainant reported that approximately three (3) weeks prior she had tried to start her vehicle and it would not start. She had the vehicle towed to the dealership who informed her that there was rodent damage and it would not be covered under her warranty and to contact her insurance company.   On 3/19/18 the company received an estimate on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $923.66 less the complainant’s applicable $500 deductible, leaving a net estimate amount of $423.66. The appraiser also noted the complainant’s vehicle had $149.11 worth of damage not related to the loss. On 3/23/18 the company spoke with the complainant’s writing producer, [redacted] Insurance. The agency confirmed they had not inspected the complainant’s vehicle at the inception of the policy, that it was purchased over the phone, and the complainant did not have insurance prior to the purchase of the First Chicago policy.   On 3/27/18 the company concluded its investigation into the claim. Our investigation revealed the loss occurred within 30 days calendar days of the policy inception.  It was also determined the complainant’s applicable deductible would be increased, after factoring a surcharge according to the policy.   The policy states in part:   PART VI – PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO YOUR AUTO LOSS SETTLEMENT UNDER COVERAGE G & H In the event of a loss and subsequent loss settlement under Coverage G or H, we are authorized to make appropriate deductions from the loss settlement amount for: (a) the deductible stated in the Declarations for that particular insured auto; however, in the event of one or more of the following losses, the applicable deductible shall be 500% the amount shown on the declarations page if the loss occurs within 30 calendar days of the policy inception, lapse in coverage, reinstatement, additional of a vehicle with Physical Damage Coverage, or addition of Physical Damage Coverage to an existing vehicle on the policy.                 I.              Single vehicle loss              ii.                Hit and run loss             iii.                Theft loss             iv.               Vandalism loss   The company spoke with the complainant on 3/27/2018 explaining the above and that the cost to repair her vehicle ($923.66) was exceeded after factoring in the deductible and the applicable surcharge as allowable by the policy. The complainant advised the company “not to worry” and ended the call. A letter explaining the surcharge was mailed to the complainant.   To date, there has been no further contact from the complainant. Based on the above we feel we have acted fairly in our handling of this matter, based on the language of the policy.   Respectfully,     Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]

December 27, 2017   Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc. 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:Complaint#:       12556634 Consumer:          Lyric [redacted] Claim Number:  ILV35262   We are in receipt of the consumer’s rejection of our response. We feel the complainant’s concerns have already been addressed. The company has issued the payment for the vehicle repairs and said payment was sent to the dealership. The company does not have any control over the dealership’s decision relative to when repairs will be started.   Furthermore, the length of time for the complainant’s family member’s claim to be resolved with another company has no connection to this loss nor is it relevant. The company initially contacted the complainant to resolve the claim eleven (11) business days after the loss was reported.   Respectfully,   Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]

November 10, 2017     Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   Complaint ID#: [redacted] Consumer: Stephanie [redacted]   Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois:   The...

Complainant’s agent called the company on 10/31/2017 inquiring as to why the complainant was still receiving invoices since she had requested to have policy cancelled. It 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 9/25/2017 7:59 PM and indicated complainant would submit signed request to cancel.  The signed request to cancel was received on 11/1/2017.  The cancelation was processed on 11/2/2017 with a 9/26/2017 effective date.   A refund payment has been processed to the complainant in the amount of $192.64.   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 11/1/2017.   Respectfully,   Heather [redacted] VP of [redacted] Phone: 708[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 $192.
Sincerely,
Stephanie [redacted]

January 31, 2018     Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc. 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:       Complaint ID#: [redacted]             Our Claim No.:            [redacted]   Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois:   We have reviewed the follow up feedback from the complainant. The company is not taking the position that negligence lies upon the complainant for failing to yield to the right of way, but rather for a failure to maintain proper lookout, failure to act as a defensive driver and failure to maintain control of her vehicle in relation to the weather conditions at the time of the loss.   As of 1/24/18 the company agreed to accept 90% liability for the loss. A payment was issued to the complainant in the amount of $783.87, 90% of the company’s initial estimate amount. In an act of good faith the company also issued a payment to compensate the complainant for their rental expenses. A payment was issued to compensate the complainant for 10 days of rental at the rate of $27.99 per day, with the liability percentage taken into account, there was a rental reimbursement payment issued to the complainant for $251.91.   Based on the aforementioned, we again feel we have acted properly in our handling of this matter.   Respectfully,  Joseph [redacted]Vice President of ClaimsPhone: 708-[redacted]

December 9, 2016       Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:      Complaint Number: [redacted]            ...

Consumer: [redacted]   Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois   This loss was reported to the company on 10/14/16 by written statement from that of our insured driver, [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] reports he was trying to make a left turn when he was hit from behind by the complainant. Mr. [redacted] states he was driving on Nagle, a one lane street with parking on the side.   On 10/19/16 the company spoke with the complainant and secured her statement. The complainant reports she was driving northbound on Nagle in the left of two (2) lanes, stating the lanes are separated by painted lines on the road, as well as parking allowed in the right lane. The complainant states the insured vehicle was also northbound in the right lane a little bit ahead of the complainant vehicle. She then reports the insured suddenly changed lanes and was in front of her to make a left turn into an alley, when she was unable to stop in time and struck the rear of the insured’s vehicle. The complainant was asked if the insured utilized a turn signal in which the complainant advised she did not know as she couldn’t see the rear of the insured’s vehicle. The company advised the complainant due to the conflicting statements, a copy of the Illinois Crash Report would be required to finalize the liability investigation.   On 11/15/16 the company received a copy of the Illinois Crash Report. The narrative stated in summary: Driver of Unit1 (insured) does not recall if he changed lanes properly. Driver of Unit 2 (complainant) related that the driver of Unit 1 was in the right lane and turned into the left lane headed north with no indicator and then the driver of Unit 2 struck the left rear bumper of unit 1.   Even in light of the Crash report narrative, our insured continued to maintain his position in that he was directly in front of the complainant’s vehicle when struck from behind. Therefore we reviewed dash cam footage from the insured’s vehicle which indicates our insured to be traveling in the only northbound lane of Nagle. A google street-view of the loss location also confirms there to only be one northbound lane of travel on Nagle, therefore contradicting the complainant’s statement that the insured made a sudden lane change. Accordingly, after a thorough investigation, the company determined to not be liable for the damages to the complainant’s vehicle as the complainant failed to reduce her speed and rear ended our insured’s vehicle.   The company spoke with the complainant on 11/17/16 and explained its position regarding the denial. A formal denial letter was sent to the complainant as well. It is never easy for an insurance company to deny a claim, nor is it easy for one to accept the denial; however, we feel we have acted properly in our handling of this claim, given our investigation and the negligence laws in the state of Illinois.   Respectfully,       [redacted] Vice President of Claims 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]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: No formal rules were sent regarding to us about car rental reimbursement.  We were only told verbally that repayment of $27 per day would be authorized.  First Chicago should be allowed to say how that $27 per day is used.  If they had rules on how that money is spent that information should have been sent to us in writing but was never done. Full reimbursement is required and we will not stop until that is done. 
Sincerely,
Lori [redacted]

January 23, 2018       Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc. 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   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 12/26/2017. 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 vehicle. The complainant further reported to the company that their vehicle was not drivable due to the damages. The company explained that in the event a vehicle is non drivable that an appraiser would be sent out for an inspection of the damages. Working under the assumption that the vehicle was non drivable, the company explained that rental is on a reimbursement basis up to $27.99 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 drivable. The vehicle was driven from the scene with minor damage to the front driver side including the headlight. The 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 tow. On 12/29/17 the company attempted to reach out to the complainant and advise of the new findings, a voice message was left requesting return contact.   On 12/29/17 the company spoke with our insured driver who stated that he was traveling north bound on 76th st. approaching a stop sign. The insured came to a complete stop, then began to proceed across Armitage Ave. The complainant who was traveling on Armitage then struck the insured vehicle near the rear driver’s side wheel causing minimal damages to both vehicles. The 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 1/4/17 the complainant contacted the company requesting status on an inspection of the vehicle. At 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 area. The complainant was scheduled for an inspection in the morning/early afternoon of 1/5/18 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 Ave. when our insured driver failed to stop at a posted stop sign. It was at this time the complainant front driver side struck the rear driver side of the insured vehicle. The complainant stated that at the time there was a light snow which was accumulating on the roadway.   On 1/5/18 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 drivers. The 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 facility. The company then explained to the complainant that rental is on a reimbursement basis of $27.99 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 $870.08 in damages to the front driver side of the complainant vehicle. The 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 vehicle. It was also noted to the complainant of her duty as a driver to maintain control of her vehicle in weather conditions. The insured vehicle had nearly made it across the intersection prior to being struck in the rear driver side. The 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 resolution. In 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 claim. The complainant was provided a copy of this offer in writing. There 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 complainant. Based 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-[redacted]-[redacted]

January 4, 2017
 
Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc.
330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120
Chicago, Illinois 60611
 
RE:       Complaint ID#: [redacted]
           ...

Consumer: [redacted]
 
This loss was reported to First Chicago Insurance by the complainant’s carrier, [redacted] Insurance. It was reported that the insured had struck the complainant’s vehicle, along with two (2) other parked vehicles. The company spoke with the complainant and arrangements were made for the vehicle to be inspected. An initial estimate was received on the complainant’s vehicle, a 2013 [redacted] in the amount of $4,320.41.
 
The company spoke with the complainant on multiple occasions and explained the concern for a potential limits issue due to the number of vehicles allegedly involved in this loss. Therefore the company needed to ascertain all the damages sustained before any settlement offers could be extended. In response the complainant indicated that she would proceed with her own carrier for the damages to her vehicle, yet as of 12/1/16, contacted the company indicating she would no longer utilize her own coverage, and would proceed again through First Chicago for her vehicle repairs. The company explained that upon receipt of the subrogation demands for the remaining parties, we would be in a position to move forward towards a settlement.
 
The company has received initial subrogation demands from [redacted] Insurance in the amount of $10,197.19 as well as [redacted] Insurance in the amount of $11,128.90. In conjunction with the initial damages to the complainant’s vehicle, $4,320.41, the total damages sustained exceed the available policy limit of $25,000.00.
 
As of this writing the company is pending an updated demand from [redacted] as their submitted demand did not include the salvage proceeds for their totaled vehicle. Upon receipt of same, the company will be in a position to present offers to all parties involved, including the complainant, ultimately concluding this matter.  Due to the availability of the $25,000 policy limit, should all claims exceed the available limits offers will be made on a prorate basis and all parties must agree to same before settlement can be made. Based on the aforementioned we believe we have acted properly in our handling, given the nature of the limits issue involved. 
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
Vice President of Claims
Phone: [redacted]

January 11, 2017     Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:          Complaint ID#:  11907501...

                Consumer:          Lexus [redacted]                 Claim Number: INV25207                 Dear Revdex.com,   This loss was reported to First Chicago Insurance by the complainant’s chosen insurance producer, Indy Select, on 7/25/16. It was reported the complainant’s vehicle, a 2012 Chevrolet Malibu, was hit while parked sustaining rear end damages.  On 7/26/16 the company spoke with Damor [redacted], an additional insured on the complainant’s policy. Damor confirmed that the damages were to the rear of the vehicle, however he also indicated the vehicle would not start. Arrangements were made for an independent appraiser to inspect the vehicle.   On 8/2/16 an initial estimate was received on the complainant’s vehicle in the amount of $2,061.88, less the complainant’s applicable $500 deductible, leaving a net estimate amount of $1,561.88. The estimate included both front and rear end damages. The appraiser indicated in his inspection report that the complainant now claims the vehicle was pushed into a 3rd vehicle, resulting in the front end damage. The complainant also reported to the appraiser that the vehicle has issues with starting. The appraiser indicated he did not believe this issue to be related to the loss.   This same date the company spoke with the complainant and explained due to the newly claimed damages to the vehicle, a copy of the police report was required to bring the claim to resolution.  On 8/8/16 a copy of the incident report was received, confirming only the complainant’s vehicle and the suspect vehicle involved in the loss. The incident report did not support the complainant’s newly reported facts of loss that the vehicle was pushed into another vehicle causing front end damage. As such, the appraisal was revised to include only the initially reported rear end damages. The revised estimate equated to $1,179.75 less the applicable $500 deductible, leaving a net revised estimate of $679.75. On 8/24/16 the complainant faxed the company a copy of the lien free title, and the settlement draft was issued directly to the complainant in the amount of $679.75.   On 9/14/16 the company received a supplement request from the complainant’s chosen repair facility, Rick’s Auto, for the replacement of a fuel pump. The independent appraiser spoke with the repair facility and it was determined the fuel pump replacement was not related to the collision loss. It was confirmed that the fuel pump was an internal component and that there was no physical damage to the fuel pump or its surrounding components. The company spoke with the complainant on 9/26/16 and explained the supplement request was not approved and that the company would not cover the cost of the fuel pump replacement.   To date, there has been no further contact from the complainant. Based on the aforementioned, we feel that based on the evidence presented we have acted fairly in reconciling this claim with no delays on behalf of the company.   Sincerely,   Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/11) */
August 11, 2015
Revdex.com
330 N. Wabash Ave, Ste. 3120
Chicago, IL XXXXX
RE: Our Claim Number: ILVXXXXX
Our Insured/Consumer: Eddie [redacted]
Complaint Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Dear Better Business...

Bureau:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed by Eddie [redacted]. This claim was reported to our company on 6/29/15 and involves the theft of complainant's Jeep Liberty which was to have occurred on 6/27/15. The vehicle was recovered and we arranged to have it inspected by one of our appraisers so an estimate of damages could be prepared. Said inspection occurred on 6/29/15.
As part of the claim process, we forwarded the complainant our Affidavit of Theft on 6/30/15. 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 7/27/15. 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 coverage. In addition we note that it took the complainant approximately 30 days to return the completed Affidavit of Theft. Unfortunately in this instance this process was delayed for reasons beyond our control as indicated above. In conclusion, we believe that this matter is now concluded. If you have any questions, please contact me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
James [redacted]
Director of Claims
[redacted]@firstchicagoinsurance.com

November 17, 2016       Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:       Complaint Number:    [redacted]             Consumer:                   Jessica [redacted]             Policy Inception Date: 3/18/2016             Date of Loss:               10/2/2016             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 hand. The complainant failed to notify the company she was involved in a prior at fault accident upon purchasing her policy of insurance. The complainant purchased the policy over the phone. The 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 investigation. The complainant has not presented any new or relevant evidence for the company to consider. To 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]

March 26, 2018       Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois, Inc. 330 North Wabash Ave, Suite 3120 Chicago, Illinois 60611   RE:         Complaint Number:       [redacted]               ...

Complainant:                   Vernon [redacted]                Claim Number:                [redacted]   Dear Revdex.com of Chicago & Northern Illinois:   This loss was reported to the company by the complainant on 2/16/18. Mr. [redacted] reported that on 2/15/18 he was stopped at a stop sign when another vehicle attempted to pass a third vehicle, resulting in a collision, forcing a vehicle to also collide with the complainant. Arrangements were made for an independent appraiser to inspect the damages to the complainant’s vehicle. It was explained the claim would be assigned to an adjuster for investigation.   On 2/23/18 the company received an estimate on the insured’s vehicle, a 2005 [redacted] 300, in the amount of $1,284.38. The appraiser also noted the vehicle to have $2,388.56 worth of damage unrelated to the loss. As such, the vehicle was determined to be a total loss.   On 2/26/18 the company received a copy of the Indiana Officer’s Standard Crash Report. The narrative states in summary, “… Unit 3 (complainant) stated that he was stopped on Harding St, at the intersection with 29th St, when he observed Unit 1 try to cross traffic. Unit 3 stated that Unit 1 was struck by Unit 2 who then struck the front of his vehicle. Unit 3 had some damage to the front of the vehicle but was able to be driven away. No Injuries.”  The crash report also revealed that the complainant did not have a driver’s license.   The company spoke with the complainant on 3/2/18 regarding his driver’s license status. The complainant stated he has a valid Indiana driver’s license. The company secured the complainant’s motor vehicle report which confirmed the complainant does not possess a valid driver’s license but that of an Indiana Identification card with a suspended status.   The company determined that coverage would not be applicable for the loss based on the exclusion section of the policy. The company spoke with the complainant and explained the denial and a denial letter was mailed.   The policy states in part:   PART V – PHYSICAL DAMAGE Exclusions: This policy does not apply under Part V: ii) arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any vehicle by any person, including an insured person, who is not a properly licensed driver, or is in violation of any condition of their driving privileges.   Our investigation determined that the complainant was not a properly licensed driver at the time of the loss. Further, the complainant failed to notify the company that he did not possess a valid driver’s license.   Based on the conditions section of the policy, we believe we have acted accordingly in our handling of this claim. To date, there has been no further contact from the complainant.   Respectfully,       Joseph [redacted] Vice President of Claims Phone: [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:this is not true. Because I am an emigrant , the [redacted] company think that I am stupid. This driver has not been in front of me on the road, he steps out of PETERSON street, along the curb.I walked down the street, normaly when he suddenly made left. I saw that he intended to make left , and I braked , my car was stoped in the moment of impact, and he came to my right and hit my car in the right side. If I were behind him, my car would not have been hit in the right side, but in front.
Sincerely,
[redacted] I saw that he left wants to do, and I braked, my car was stopped in the moment of impact, he came to my right and hit my car on the right sideI saw that he left wants to do, and I braked, my car was stopped in the moment of impact, he came to my right and hit my car on the right sideI saw that he left wants to do, and I braked, my car was stopped in the moment of impact, he came to my right and hit my car on the right sideif I was behind him, the car would not have been hit in the right side, he might have been hit in the face