Johnathan Blake Incorporated

On Saturday, September 2,2017, [redacted] arrived at our MAACO Shop location ( [redacted] , Rear, Philadelphia, Pa) requesting to receive a free, no obligation estimate for damages to his 2010 [redacted] ***. Assistant Branch Manager Mark Me Shane (myself) wrote an estimate based on the... vehicle damages as pointed out by [redacted] . The estimate totaled $1072.98 however, [redacted] was offered a “round number” price of $1,000 to complete the job. After adjustment, that number became $999,98 including Sales Tax and Waste Removal fee. [redacted] was willing to do the work as described and for the price as shown. We agreed he could return with the car as soon as Tuesday, September 5 at 8 a,m. when the shop would reopen after Labor Day. [redacted] contacted our shop on Wednesday, September 6 and spoke with the shop General Manager Bob W [redacted] , (herein to be named also as GM Bob, or simply Bob), stating that he was curious as to whether he should explore using his own Insurance Company for the repairs. Bob advised that should [redacted] wish to, he was certainly within his right to do so. Bob further reminded [redacted] that there would be a co-payment required by [redacted] for his deductible amount, but that if he cared to, he ( [redacted] ) could let the Insurance Company Agent know that we would be the “shop of choice”. Finally, Bob told [redacted] that, once re-assessed by the Insurance Company, their ( [redacted] ’s) Estimate would then prevail. [redacted] ended the conversation with words to the effect of, ‘Ok, I’ll get back to you’. [redacted] returned to our shop location again on Tuesday, September 11,2017 and shared with General Manager Bob the Estimate for repairs as prepared by [redacted] ***, Adjuster for [redacted] INS CO and reflecting Claim # [redacted] . After listing the $500 deductible/co-payment as [redacted] ’s responsibility, the approved amount of $490.36 was the covered claim total. [redacted] then asked if Bob would be willing to request a SUPPLEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL DAMAGES, stating that he ( [redacted] ) was not satisfied that all damage was included, mentioning damage which had been assessed by his Insurance Company as having been prior to present “loss”. Bob sent the Supplement Request Form back to [redacted] asking an additional amount of $600. [redacted] left our shop indicating that he would be in touch with Bob after he heard back from [redacted] .Friday, September 15, 2017, [redacted] called our shop location stating that he would be dropping his vehicle off at our shop location on Monday, September 18, and the Supplement Request would be addressed in person by an [redacted] adjuster at our shop location. Said adjuster would then deem the request as valid to the claim, or invalid as “prior damage”. GM Bob told [redacted] that was fine and reiterated that now that the second adjuster was going to make the final determination, said determination would apply. [redacted] at this time suggested that we do the $ 1,000 repair as written by Mark (myself) originally on September 2 irrespective what the Adjustor might recommend or approve. Implied clearly was [redacted] ’s belief that he would avoid responsibility of his deductible as well as possibly retain funds from [redacted] ultimately. Bob told [redacted] several times that [redacted] was determining eligibility and legitimacy of the damages and their findings were final. Eventually, [redacted] affirmed that [redacted] would have final say, adding that he would have the vehicle on our lot on Monday morning, 9-18-17 at 8 a,m. [redacted] brought his [redacted] to our shop location Monday morning. The second adjuster of Record (for the Supplement Request) was [redacted] ***, [redacted] INS CO, License # [redacted] . There had been some minor delay, [redacted] explained to Mark (myself) by telephone on Tuesday September 19, but that he ( [redacted] ***) would finally be out to our shop between 8 & 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 20. [redacted] was apprised of the planned visit by [redacted] ***. Wednesday 9-20 would be the final estimate by [redacted] ’s Insurance Company and repairs could then get started straight away. [redacted] came out and re-assessed the vehicle, as promised, between 8 & 9 a.m. on 9-20. As part of the supplement, a search for hidden damage, and “tear down” of the vehicle was required. It is standard operating procedure. Tear down took place, and that tear down was done, not by our shop personnel, but by [redacted] personally. Photos were taken by [redacted] at that time as well. Approval was granted by [redacted] (and by extension, [redacted] ) to allow for a replacement of the entire Rear Bumper Cover, and [redacted] had cut off a section of the damaged Bumper Cover itself as part of the removal/tear down process. [redacted] ’s complaint alleges that MAACO removed and cut off his Bumper Cover. This is patently untrue. His own authorized Insurance Company representative did so, at Mr.McCafferty’s request per the Supplement Request Form asking for an increased award amount for damages. Further, since [redacted] had indicated that our shop location would be his “repair facility of choice”, the condition of the vehicle was actually immaterial to the extent of the damaged condition he states that he and his partner found the vehicle in. Our shop (MAACO of Manayunk) was prepared to set to work doing all associated repair and refinish to his vehicle. As a matter of record, a vehicle which has undergone a “tear down” does naturally look. ..in despair. [redacted] completed his Supplement. [redacted] left an [redacted] INS CO check made payable to [redacted] & MAACO Collision Center of Manayunk with General Manager Bob. [redacted] left the shop premises before 11 a.m. that day. [redacted] and a man, whom it was later disclosed to be his “partner”, but otherwise unnamed, arrived at our shop location some time after [redacted] adjuster [redacted] had left the premises. [redacted] ’s partner loudly announced his displeasure with the vehicle condition as he bounded through the front door of our shop premises, quite literally hollering that his vehicle had been damaged here, demanded explanation and threatened to create chaos if corrective action was not immediately rendered. Neither General Manager Bob nor myself knew who this man was or why he was referring to the vehicle as “his”. Until that precise moment, both Bob & I were under the impression that [redacted] was the only vehicle owner and, naturally, all dealings had been mutually exclusive between himself, myself and Bob. Words were heatedly exchanged by the unnamed gentleman and GM Bob, at which time Bob requested that the man calm down and, perhaps, the man might exit and re-enter the office with a more calm demeanor. [redacted] , the initiator of contact about servicing the vehicle back on September 2, 2017 and ever since, did not enter the office. I learned subsequently that [redacted] contacted the police and made a call to [redacted] INS CO requesting Adjuster [redacted] return at once to the shop location; for the remainder of his stay on our premises, [redacted] paced outside in our parking lot. A City of Philadelphia Police Officer did arrive at our premises and make a report of the situation. He spoke with [redacted] , [redacted] ’s partner and GM Bob, While [redacted] has claimed that a threat was voiced by Bob, let the record likewise show that [redacted] told Bob "I’ll cave your head in”. GM Bob, in the presence of the Philadelphia Officer stood back and said, “Go ahead”.Adjuster [redacted] returned to our Center location at approximately 2:45 p.m. and chatted with myself and GM Bob. [redacted] shared with us about his experience with [redacted] and his partner. In direct answer to my question of identity of the “insured”, **, [redacted] identified both [redacted] and his partner as “insureds” and mentioned what might be best described as unsavory past dealings with the two men. His advice to Bob and myself was, “Don’t get involved with these guys; you don’t want their kind of trouble”. We shared with [redacted] that [redacted] had been angling to increase the Insurance Estimate from the original assessment made on September 7 by **. [redacted] so that he could avoid paying any part of his required deductible. [redacted] simply shook his head and stated words to the effect of, “I’ve had many dealings with them before and this is how they are. I will simply void the check I left earlier and reissue it payable to them. Do not do any repairs; just let them leave and be glad for it.” [redacted] issued the check. He returned into our shop office and obtained the vehicle key stating, “May I take them the key? They don’t want to come in for it”. We obliged, naturally.I am attaching related, supporting paperwork and one vehicle photo to offer the BBB an idea of the nature of the damage as it was when my original estimate was written. In our shop experience, it is not uncommon for folks to, knowingly or otherwise, attempt to avoid copayment of their deductible. I expressed to [redacted] on September 11 that his request for an amount of repair money that was unjustifiable could constitute fraud and that our shop wasn’t going to entertain that idea. Bob further stated to [redacted] in that same conversation, (September 11) “You’re trying to get an amount (of money) that just isn’t realistic”. [redacted] insisted during that September 11 conversation that we fix the vehicle for the original estimate I provided to him on September 2 (prior to Insurance involvement) and he simply keep the extra money. Bob and I made it abundantly clear that now that [redacted] had reassessed his vehicle repair damages, our preliminary estimate from 9-2-17 was moot The [redacted] finding would prevail, all required parts would need to be purchased, all repairs and paint would be need to be completed to their specifications, and, yes, he would be responsible for a $500 deductible amount.The McCafferty vehicle left the premises that day at approximately 3:45 p.m. The Philadelphia Police Officer left the premises a bit prior to that time, as did [redacted] INS CO Adjuster [redacted] ***. That concluded all contact between parties mentioned herein.Let me be Nothing which occurred during the course of actions at our shop location was extraordinary, uncustomary or untoward. Ultimately, we served simply as the location for [redacted] to meet with his own Insurance representative and all interactions occurred between those parties, it turned out. MAACO personnel were NOT involved in the tear down of the vehicle or the decision(s) undertaken to establish a value for [redacted] ’s claim. [redacted] is asking that we repair his vehicle at no personal cost to him. We find that request to be completely without merit based upon the fact that we were ready, willing and able to do such repairs, but for his decision to have his Insurance Company reassess the vehicle, approve further repair values and look for hidden damage to justify increased payment to him. Tearing down a vehicle in search of such hidden damage is standard protocol. Normally, the insured would choose, following that step in the process, to leave the vehicle at the repair center, and repairs would take place in an agreed upon time-frame. [redacted] ’s displeasure with his auto condition strongly suggests that he was looking to simply obtain whatever money he could via a fraudulently based “claim” and drive away with his vehicle in a condition close if not identical to its’ original damaged condition. Further, [redacted] has obtained a payment from his Insurance Company, the nature of which payment ought to be applied to addressing those repairs. He has been made more than “whole” (and unfairly so, in my professional opinion). He made a claim. His Insurance provider paid him. End of stoiy. To my mind, the relationship with [redacted] is now concluded. The relationship never progressed beyond an “estimate” stage with [redacted] and our MAACO Shop as it turned out It shall be our option and desire to never associate with [redacted] again in any way related to our business.FINAL POINTS:>There is NO PURCHASE DATE. (Nothing was purchased whatsoever.)>There is NO DISPUTED AMOUNT. (VALUES WERE DETERMINED BY [redacted] INS CO)>ORDER NUMBER is in fact the ORIGINAL ESTIMATE # and that estimate was written prior to [redacted] INS CO overruling, at the insured’s ( [redacted] ’s) own request, and undertaking their own Estimate of damages, (not just once but twice) on behalf of their client MAACO had no part in that process. We simply awaited finality of that process with the potential of rendering services in good faith thereafter. As known presently, that course of action did not occur.Desired Outcome/Settlement:Our location chooses to have no further dealings with [redacted] or his partner, or any parties connected thereto in any future business dealings. Our Center prides itself on fair, ethical & honest dealings with all of our clients, distributors and business partners. Dishonestly inclined business schemes and scams are identified and dismissed when they are brought to our Service Center. Our motto can be best described as: Figures don’t lie & Liars don’t figure. While tending to believe that most people are honest and forthright, there is no shortage of dishonest and unscrupulous behavior in society.

On Saturday, September 2,2017, [redacted] arrived at our MAACO Shop location ([redacted], Rear, Philadelphia, Pa) requesting to receive a free, no obligation estimate for damages to his 2010 [redacted]. Assistant Branch Manager Mark Me Shane (myself) wrote an estimate based on the...

vehicle damages as pointed out by [redacted]. The estimate totaled $1072.98 however, [redacted] was offered a “round number” price of $1,000 to complete the job. After adjustment, that number became $999,98 including Sales Tax and Waste Removal fee. [redacted] was willing to do the work as described and for the price as shown. We agreed he could return with the car as soon as Tuesday, September 5 at 8 a,m. when the shop would reopen after Labor Day.[redacted] contacted our shop on Wednesday, September 6 and spoke with the shop General Manager Bob W[redacted], (herein to be named also as GM Bob, or simply Bob), stating that he was curious as to whether he should explore using his own Insurance Company for the repairs. Bob advised that should [redacted] wish to, he was certainly within his right to do so. Bob further reminded [redacted] that there would be a co-payment required by [redacted] for his deductible amount, but that if he cared to, he ([redacted]) could let the Insurance Company Agent know that we would be the “shop of choice”. Finally, Bob told [redacted] that, once re-assessed by the Insurance Company, their ([redacted]’s) Estimate would then prevail. [redacted] ended the conversation with words to the effect of, ‘Ok, I’ll get back to you’.[redacted] returned to our shop location again on Tuesday, September 11,2017 and shared with General Manager Bob the Estimate for repairs as prepared by [redacted], Adjuster for [redacted] INS CO and reflecting Claim # [redacted]. After listing the $500 deductible/co-payment as [redacted]’s responsibility, the approved amount of $490.36 was the covered claim total. [redacted] then asked if Bob would be willing to request a SUPPLEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL DAMAGES, stating that he ([redacted]) was not satisfied that all damage was included, mentioning damage which had been assessed by his Insurance Company as having been prior to present “loss”. Bob sent the Supplement Request Form back to [redacted] asking an additional amount of $600. [redacted] left our shop indicating that he would be in touch with Bob after he heard back from [redacted].Friday, September 15, 2017, [redacted] called our shop location stating that he would be dropping his vehicle off at our shop location on Monday, September 18, and the Supplement Request would be addressed in person by an [redacted] adjuster at our shop location. Said adjuster would then deem the request as valid to the claim, or invalid as “prior damage”. GM Bob told [redacted] that was fine and reiterated that now that the second adjuster was going to make the final determination, said determination would apply. [redacted] at this time suggested that we do the $ 1,000 repair as written by Mark (myself) originally on September 2 irrespective what the Adjustor might recommend or approve. Implied clearly was [redacted]’s belief that he would avoid responsibility of his deductible as well as possibly retain funds from [redacted] ultimately. Bob told [redacted] several times that [redacted] was determining eligibility and legitimacy of the damages and their findings were final. Eventually, [redacted] affirmed that [redacted] would have final say, adding that he would have the vehicle on our lot on Monday morning, 9-18-17 at 8 a,m.[redacted] brought his [redacted] to our shop location Monday morning. The second adjuster of Record (for the Supplement Request) was [redacted], [redacted] INS CO, License # [redacted]. There had been some minor delay, [redacted] explained to Mark (myself) by telephone on Tuesday September 19, but that he ([redacted]) would finally be out to our shop between 8 & 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 20. [redacted] was apprised of the planned visit by [redacted]. Wednesday 9-20 would be the final estimate by [redacted]’s Insurance Company and repairs could then get started straight away.[redacted] came out and re-assessed the vehicle, as promised, between 8 & 9 a.m. on 9-20. As part of the supplement, a search for hidden damage, and “tear down” of the vehicle was required. It is standard operating procedure. Tear down took place, and that tear down was done, not by our shop personnel, but by [redacted] personally. Photos were taken by [redacted] at that time as well. Approval was granted by [redacted] (and by extension, [redacted]) to allow for a replacement of the entire Rear Bumper Cover, and [redacted] had cut off a section of the damaged Bumper Cover itself as part of the removal/tear down process.[redacted]’s complaint alleges that MAACO removed and cut off his Bumper Cover. This is patently untrue. His own authorized Insurance Company representative did so, at Mr.McCafferty’s request per the Supplement Request Form asking for an increased award amount for damages. Further, since [redacted] had indicated that our shop location would be his “repair facility of choice”, the condition of the vehicle was actually immaterial to the extent of the damaged condition he states that he and his partner found the vehicle in. Our shop (MAACO of Manayunk) was prepared to set to work doing all associated repair and refinish to his vehicle. As a matter of record, a vehicle which has undergone a “tear down” does naturally look. ..in despair. [redacted] completed his Supplement. [redacted] left an [redacted] INS CO check made payable to [redacted] & MAACO Collision Center of Manayunk with General Manager Bob. [redacted] left the shop premises before 11 a.m. that day.[redacted] and a man, whom it was later disclosed to be his “partner”, but otherwise unnamed, arrived at our shop location some time after [redacted] adjuster [redacted] had left the premises. [redacted]’s partner loudly announced his displeasure with the vehicle condition as he bounded through the front door of our shop premises, quite literally hollering that his vehicle had been damaged here, demanded explanation and threatened to create chaos if corrective action was not immediately rendered. Neither General Manager Bob nor myself knew who this man was or why he was referring to the vehicle as “his”. Until that precise moment, both Bob & I were under the impression that [redacted] was the only vehicle owner and, naturally, all dealings had been mutually exclusive between himself, myself and Bob. Words were heatedly exchanged by the unnamed gentleman and GM Bob, at which time Bob requested that the man calm down and, perhaps, the man might exit and re-enter the office with a more calm demeanor. [redacted], the initiator of contact about servicing the vehicle back on September 2, 2017 and ever since, did not enter the office. I learned subsequently that [redacted] contacted the police and made a call to [redacted] INS CO requesting Adjuster [redacted] return at once to the shop location; for the remainder of his stay on our premises, [redacted] paced outside in our parking lot. A City of Philadelphia Police Officer did arrive at our premises and make a report of the situation. He spoke with [redacted], [redacted]’s partner and GM Bob, While [redacted] has claimed that a threat was voiced by Bob, let the record likewise show that [redacted] told Bob "I’ll cave your head in”. GM Bob, in the presence of the Philadelphia Officer stood back and said, “Go ahead”.Adjuster [redacted] returned to our Center location at approximately 2:45 p.m. and chatted with myself and GM Bob. [redacted] shared with us about his experience with [redacted] and his partner. In direct answer to my question of identity of the “insured”, **, [redacted] identified both [redacted] and his partner as “insureds” and mentioned what might be best described as unsavory past dealings with the two men. His advice to Bob and myself was, “Don’t get involved with these guys; you don’t want their kind of trouble”. We shared with [redacted] that [redacted] had been angling to increase the Insurance Estimate from the original assessment made on September 7 by **. [redacted] so that he could avoid paying any part of his required deductible. [redacted] simply shook his head and stated words to the effect of, “I’ve had many dealings with them before and this is how they are. I will simply void the check I left earlier and reissue it payable to them. Do not do any repairs; just let them leave and be glad for it.” [redacted] issued the check. He returned into our shop office and obtained the vehicle key stating, “May I take them the key? They don’t want to come in for it”. We obliged, naturally.I am attaching related, supporting paperwork and one vehicle photo to offer the Revdex.com an idea of the nature of the damage as it was when my original estimate was written. In our shop experience, it is not uncommon for folks to, knowingly or otherwise, attempt to avoid copayment of their deductible. I expressed to [redacted] on September 11 that his request for an amount of repair money that was unjustifiable could constitute fraud and that our shop wasn’t going to entertain that idea. Bob further stated to [redacted] in that same conversation, (September 11) “You’re trying to get an amount (of money) that just isn’t realistic”.[redacted] insisted during that September 11 conversation that we fix the vehicle for the original estimate I provided to him on September 2 (prior to Insurance involvement) and he simply keep the extra money. Bob and I made it abundantly clear that now that [redacted] had reassessed his vehicle repair damages, our preliminary estimate from 9-2-17 was moot The [redacted] finding would prevail, all required parts would need to be purchased, all repairs and paint would be need to be completed to their specifications, and, yes, he would be responsible for a $500 deductible amount.The McCafferty vehicle left the premises that day at approximately 3:45 p.m. The Philadelphia Police Officer left the premises a bit prior to that time, as did [redacted] INS CO Adjuster [redacted]. That concluded all contact between parties mentioned herein.Let me be clear: Nothing which occurred during the course of actions at our shop location was extraordinary, uncustomary or untoward. Ultimately, we served simply as the location for [redacted] to meet with his own Insurance representative and all interactions occurred between those parties, it turned out. MAACO personnel were NOT involved in the tear down of the vehicle or the decision(s) undertaken to establish a value for [redacted]’s claim. [redacted] is asking that we repair his vehicle at no personal cost to him. We find that request to be completely without merit based upon the fact that we were ready, willing and able to do such repairs, but for his decision to have his Insurance Company reassess the vehicle, approve further repair values and look for hidden damage to justify increased payment to him. Tearing down a vehicle in search of such hidden damage is standard protocol. Normally, the insured would choose, following that step in the process, to leave the vehicle at the repair center, and repairs would take place in an agreed upon time-frame. [redacted]’s displeasure with his auto condition strongly suggests that he was looking to simply obtain whatever money he could via a fraudulently based “claim” and drive away with his vehicle in a condition close if not identical to its’ original damaged condition. Further, [redacted] has obtained a payment from his Insurance Company, the nature of which payment ought to be applied to addressing those repairs. He has been made more than “whole” (and unfairly so, in my professional opinion). He made a claim. His Insurance provider paid him. End of stoiy. To my mind, the relationship with [redacted] is now concluded. The relationship never progressed beyond an “estimate” stage with [redacted] and our MAACO Shop as it turned out It shall be our option and desire to never associate with [redacted] again in any way related to our business.FINAL POINTS:>There is NO PURCHASE DATE. (Nothing was purchased whatsoever.)>There is NO DISPUTED AMOUNT. (VALUES WERE DETERMINED BY [redacted] INS CO)>ORDER NUMBER is in fact the ORIGINAL ESTIMATE # and that estimate was written prior to [redacted] INS CO overruling, at the insured’s ([redacted]’s) own request, and undertaking their own Estimate of damages, (not just once but twice) on behalf of their client MAACO had no part in that process. We simply awaited finality of that process with the potential of rendering services in good faith thereafter. As known presently, that course of action did not occur.Desired Outcome/Settlement:Our location chooses to have no further dealings with [redacted] or his partner, or any parties connected thereto in any future business dealings. Our Center prides itself on fair, ethical & honest dealings with all of our clients, distributors and business partners. Dishonestly inclined business schemes and scams are identified and dismissed when they are brought to our Service Center. Our motto can be best described as: Figures don’t lie & Liars don’t figure. While tending to believe that most people are honest and forthright, there is no shortage of dishonest and unscrupulous behavior in society.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Regards,
[redacted]