Markel American Insurance Company

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the customer’s concerns. The insured took out a policy with Markel on 9/15/15 with a total premium of $126.96. On 9/21/15, the Insured added the Replacement Cost and Theft Coverage endorsement to their policy with an effective date of 10/15/15. This...

coverage is an additional $1.88 per month. With 11 months left in the policy, that would equate to $20.68 of additional costs for the requested coverage.  The insured received a confirmation email on 9/21/15 indicating the increased premium amount. Since insured had already paid $126.96, her policy had enough equity to cover 9 months.  Once her equity was used up, the additional premium was billed to the credit card on file for the policy. Should you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
First of all, their response does not explain why they never returned any of my calls.  I paid them a fee for service and how is it that they cannot at least give me a call back when I have concerns as to why my account was not showing any followup and response to their marketing efforts.  In the beginning, they did show their correspondence and feedback from the various companies.  I could see their input.  Then, after a few months they stopped and all the previous comments that I had read were removed.  So I tried to reach out and find out what was going on and I could not get anyone to respond.  As far as Conair being one of their accounts, they are ignoring the fact that I was even told BEFORE I made my decision to move forward.  I feel that I was told for the sole purpose of persuading me to move forward.  The fact is, they will NOT reveal to me any of the contacts that they've sent my invention to.  They told me they can't due to confidentiality.  So if that is the case, then why did the salesman tell me about Conair?  Why is it that he told me and the others won't?  There's only ONE reason.... my invention is a hair dryer.   He was trying to entice me with the fact that of course Conair would be interested in my product. That is misleading and unlawful according to my rights. The way I see it, I was dooped.  If one employee is revealing confidential company information from a client list, then why can they not give me the names of the companies that they are marketing to?  It's a question that deserves an answer.  I paid this company a fee for service.  I did not, in all good conscience, pay for a so called listing, month after month, of the SAME EXACT statement telling me absolutely nothing.  Lastly, she says I have access to my account.  That's true.  NOW I do.  But what she's not telling you is that when this thing started, I didn't.  I was blocked out, on my computer and on my phone.  I just recently received an email from her stating that they supposedly had problems with their server.  Rather convenient that she fixed the problem right before she responded to my complaint.... with no mention of the server issue.Not impressed at all with their response and the way I have been handled overall.   They did absolutely nothing to try and resolve this issue... not even ONE phone call.  Would not recommend this company to anyone in the market.  Will be ever so eager to express my extreme disappointment in the future.  
Regards,
[redacted]

We are sorry to hear of Mr. [redacted]'s dissatisfaction. Mr. [redacted] purchased services from InventionHome on 5/4/2015. At that time, Mr. [redacted] was provided with a Work Verification and Service Agreement that he agreed to on 5/7/2015, which outlines, in part:    Services. Jacob agrees to provide...

to Client the services that are listed in the Work Verification page of client web account, which made part of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the creation of the Invention Portfolio as identified therein (such services are hereinafter referred to as the “Services”).  The parties agree that Client shall own all rights in and to the Invention Portfolio and that all completed work files associated with the Invention Portfolio can be downloaded and saved to Client’s computer directly from the main menu of Client’s web account.  Client also understands and agrees that Jacob did not charge Client a fee with respect to Jacob’s marketing and licensing program.     Understanding.  Client has been explained the content and extent of the Services and acknowledges an understanding of the same.  Client acknowledges that Jacob does not evaluate product potential, express opinions on product marketability or guarantee the success or patentability of client’s product and that client’s decision to pursue product is based on his/her own belief in product potential.  Client acknowledges that Jacob did not make any claims or express opinions asserting the likelihood of marketability, success or patentability of client’s product.   Mr. [redacted] paid for an invention portfolio website, which was completed and approved, and did not pay for marketing services, as noted above.  InventionHome provides each of its customers access to a Marketing Activity Program, which is a detailed report showing marketing efforts for each month.  To date, InventionHome has reached out to 84 companies regarding Mr. [redacted]’s product.  This information is contained on Mr. [redacted]’s marketing report for his review.  We do not include company names due to confidentiality agreements that are in place with each member company.  We will, however, disclose company names once the product is at an interest stage with a company.  I, personally, corresponded with Mr. [redacted] on 1/5/2016 and explained all this same information to him. We do not believe there is merit in Mr. [redacted]’s refund request, as all paid services were completed, but we will continue to market Mr. [redacted]’s product to companies if he would like us to do so. If any further information is needed, please let me know. Marcia V[redacted] Director, Customer Operations

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Dear Revdex.com[[redacted]I feel that Invention Home misrepresented itself leading me to believe I had a brand new invention. I have found out that  [redacted], as well as several other toy companies had already manufactured what I was led to believe was an original idea. Either invention Home does not know the toy industry or they do and still go ahead and lie to people as to what the toy industry will license. I trusted them I no longer do and would like my money back.
Regards,
[redacted]

Ms. [redacted] purchased an invention portfolio website from InventionHome on 12/28/2016 in the amount of $1598.00  The monies paid to InventionHome were for services related to the creation of Ms. [redacted]’s portfolio website, not the marketing of her product. Attached are the Work Verification and...

Service Agreement documents that Ms. [redacted] agreed to on 12/30/2016.  Both documents outline marketing services are done on a contingency basis and not part of the paid services, and paragraph 9 in the Service Agreement states all sales are non-refundable after the work has been completed.    When Ms. [redacted]’s product was sent to the marketing team to be scheduled out to companies our team went through the entire company database by hand and selected the most applicable companies and submitted Ms. [redacted]’s product.  Our marketing department tries to reach as many companies as possible and they don’t restrict themselves to certain categories, basically if a company has the means to produce a product and it matches their criteria, they will send it.  Ms. [redacted]’s claim that the type of portfolio website she purchased received different amount of work is completely false and without merit.    We utilize The Marketing Activity Program (MAP) Report as an on-line summarization that provides inventors with ongoing updates about the marketing efforts. This page updates every month to display recent marketing activity. Each entry in the report represents a different company that has been contacted.  While I can understand Ms. [redacted]’s desire to be in direct contact with us regularly about her invention's progress in marketing, it is not possible for our marketing team to call or personally email every inventor on a regular basis with an update.  The MAP report tool is our marketing department’s way to efficiently and effectively keep our inventors updated on the status of their invention on a monthly basis.  The marketing team always contacts inventors directly if a company has any feedback for, or interest in, an invention.  All customers are made aware that we utilize the MAP report as the main form of communication regarding marketing efforts.   I do understand that the MAP report can look repetitive.  The MAP report is meant to be a summary of the marketing activity and when the marketing team documents their work, the system that loads the MAP report produces standard entries for the different types of activities.  If a company has feedback or interest that information is manually entered by the marketing team (after they contact the inventor about it) and produces an entry that reflects more specific information.  To help Ms. [redacted] understand her MAP report a bit better, a Portfolio Site Submission entry on her MAP report indicates the direct submission of her invention information to our contact at a company.  A May We Suggest (MWS) entry is a way to bring ongoing exposure to her invention where we randomly cycle invention information to relevant companies in categories that her invention falls into, which can add numerous additional company submissions.  Regardless of the type of submission, each line item on Ms. [redacted]’s MAP report represents contact with a company.   Please feel free to direct any further correspondence regarding this matter directly to me.  Thanks, Marcia

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. 
Regards,
[redacted] I still say that when they told me I had to pay a attorney fee  that is when I herd noting from them .I already had a patent on my  trailer hitch steps. as for the cash register taser patent I did not have a patent and I don,t think I will ever get one on it.from what I here from them at patent home I will not get any satisfaction from them .

Mr. [redacted] purchased a motorcycle insurance policy with Markel American Insurance Company (MAIC) on April 1, 2015 online at www.markelinsuresfun.com.  At that time Mr. [redacted] did not select coverage for uninsured motorist bodily injury and property damage coverage.  We are required by...

regulation to obtain a signed rejection form for this coverage.  Mr. [redacted]’s policy documents, including rejection form were sent out the next day to the address he provided during policy issuance.  The policy documents included a message about the importance of returning the signed coverage rejection form.  On April 22, 2015, MAIC Customer Service left a voicemail for Mr. [redacted] at the phone number he provided during policy issuance. That message included a reminder to return the signed coverage rejection form.   On May 5, 2015, MAIC had not received the signed form from Mr. [redacted] and as is our practice when the form is not returned added the required coverage on the policy.  At that time a letter including the form, as well as new policy documentation indicating the change and invoice for the additional premium ($142.00) were sent to Mr. [redacted].On July 26, 2015, Mr. [redacted] emailed MAIC customer service requesting an address change.  The change was made effective on July 27, 2015.After not receiving any additional payment on the coverage added to the policy, Mr. [redacted]’s policy was scheduled for cancellation on October 30, 2015.  Mr. [redacted] was sent a notice about this pending cancellation on October 15, 2015.  Mr. [redacted] called MAIC Customer Service on October 19, 2015, and was advised of the reason for cancellation.   Mr. [redacted] returned the signed form to MAIC on October 19, 2015, and the coverage was removed as of that date. Mr. [redacted] carried the required coverage from April 1, 2015, through October 19, 2015.  The premium that Mr. [redacted] is disputing is for the coverage provided during this time period, amounting to $78.00.Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

Review: After paying for motorcycle insurance for a year, in advance, I was sent a notice, months later, stating they would cancel my insurance if I did not pay $142.I called them in which they stated they had sent a letter in the mail for me to fill out and fax back, I told them I never received any such paper of ADDITIONAL coverage and I had paid in advance for the coverage I wanted.Markel emailed me another form which I promptly filled out and emailed back. I got a confirmation of receipt!A week later, I got bill for $78 for the additional coverage I had used.The supervisor won't return the calls!Desired Settlement: I want $0 balance on the policy that DOES NOT have my signature on it. I have never had a problem with Markel in the past. I hope I can still use them in the future if this mistake can get ironed out.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] purchased a motorcycle insurance policy with Markel American Insurance Company (MAIC) on April 1, 2015 online at www.markelinsuresfun.com. At that time Mr. [redacted] did not select coverage for uninsured motorist bodily injury and property damage coverage. We are required by regulation to obtain a signed rejection form for this coverage. Mr. [redacted]’s policy documents, including rejection form were sent out the next day to the address he provided during policy issuance. The policy documents included a message about the importance of returning the signed coverage rejection form. On April 22, 2015, MAIC Customer Service left a voicemail for Mr. [redacted] at the phone number he provided during policy issuance. That message included a reminder to return the signed coverage rejection form. On May 5, 2015, MAIC had not received the signed form from Mr. [redacted] and as is our practice when the form is not returned added the required coverage on the policy. At that time a letter including the form, as well as new policy documentation indicating the change and invoice for the additional premium ($142.00) were sent to Mr. [redacted].On July 26, 2015, Mr. [redacted] emailed MAIC customer service requesting an address change. The change was made effective on July 27, 2015.After not receiving any additional payment on the coverage added to the policy, Mr. [redacted]’s policy was scheduled for cancellation on October 30, 2015. Mr. [redacted] was sent a notice about this pending cancellation on October 15, 2015. Mr. [redacted] called MAIC Customer Service on October 19, 2015, and was advised of the reason for cancellation. Mr. [redacted] returned the signed form to MAIC on October 19, 2015, and the coverage was removed as of that date. Mr. [redacted] carried the required coverage from April 1, 2015, through October 19, 2015. The premium that Mr. [redacted] is disputing is for the coverage provided during this time period, amounting to $78.00.Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

Review: I was insured for 15 years with markel insurance. I had no claims in those 15 years. On november 23-2013 my 1984, 35 foot commercial fishing boat sank at the dock and I notified markel insurance. Their inspector came to inspect my boat on november 26, december 4th, and on december 19th 2013. Juring these inspections the head machanic of [redacted] boat and motors ( mechanic of the boat yard where my vessel was hauled out after it sunk) was inspecting my vessel with their serveyor. Based on their surveyors report markel insurance denied to cover my losses on january 14th, 2014. Denial of claim was based on 2 rusted hose clamps that markel insurence said made my boat un seaworthy. Thus voiding my policy. Both of the rusted hose clamps had no bearing on my vessel sinking. In fact due to the battery acid in the bilge and other chemicals that leaked out when my vessel sunk caused rust to form on the clamps and other parts of my vessel. The head mechanic contacted their surveyor about his report and the surveyor stated that he "assumed" that was the cause of the boat sinking and he didnt think markel insurance would deny the claim based on his report. The head mechanics report differs greatly from their surveyors report. I called markel claims twice and emailed them concerning their surveyors inacurate report and recieved no reply. At this writing I am without compensation for my losses. I am asking for the insured value of my boat 46,880 - the 1,300 deductable plus all bills related to the sinking of my vessel be paid.Desired Settlement: I am asking for the insured value of my boat 46,880 - the 1,300 deductable plus all bills related to the sinking of my vessel be paid

Business

Response:

Please accept this response on behalf of Markel American Insurance Company in the above referenced

matter. Markel Service, Incorporated is the claims service manager for Markel American Insurance

Company.

On November 25, 2013 [redacted] reported to Markel American Insurance Company that his 1984

35' [redacted] sunk at the dock while at [redacted] Boat and Motors for repairs. Upon receipt of his

claim, Markel retained independent marine surveyor Albert [redacted] to inspect Mr. [redacted]'s vessel in

order to assist Markel in determining the cause, nature and extent of the damage.

Following multiple inspections of the vessel, including a re-Iaunching of the vessel to verify the source of

the water ingress, surveyor [redacted] reported the following conclusions regarding the cause of the vessel

sinking at the dock:

Based on the information that was available at the time of writing this report, the evidence clearly shows

that the cause of water entering the bilge was due to deteriorated hose claims and propeller shaft

packing. Bilge pump operation was questionable at the time of submersion with the forward pump had

been tested and found to be shorted.

On January 14, 2014 Markel provided a written denial of coverage letter to Mr. [redacted].

Mr. [redacted] has now filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Revdex.com alleging that the rusted

hose clamps identified as one of the sources of water ingress had no bearing on the sinking of his vessel.

Mr. [redacted] also alleges that leaking battery acid along with other unidentified chemicals leaked into the

bilge during the sinking causing rust to form on the clamps and other parts of his vessel.

In fact, Surveyor [redacted] identified the two deteriorated hose clamps (their stainless steel bands had

parted) as directly related to two of the three observed sources of water ingress (the third being a

leaking propeller shaft log). The idea that the failure of these hose clamps was due to the extremely

small volume of battery acid and/or other chemical present in the bilge of the vessel is unsupported.

The hose clamps were clearly in an advanced stage of deterioration prior to the sinking, and their loss of

tension on their corresponding hoses lead to water ingress at those hoses.

Finally, Mr. [redacted] never does identify an alternative source of water ingress that he believes lead to the

sinking of his vessel at the dock in calm weather.

Markel denied coverage to Mr. [redacted] only after a thorough investigation by Albert [redacted], an

experienced independent marine surveyor who is accredited by, and was a founding member of, the

Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors.

There is no new factual information asserted in the complaint by Mr. [redacted] that would alter Markel's

decision to deny coverage for his loss.

Please contact me if you need further information or assistance.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I originally purchased a motorcycle insurance policy in August 2014. I paid up front in full. A few weeks later, I received a notice indicating I would have to sign a form to indicate I was not accepting under or uninsured insurance coverage, and if I didnt return the form they would charge me for that coverage. I filled out the form, and sent in back in the mail (exact date unknown, about a week after I got the form. About three days ago (1/31/2015), I got a notice about cancellation of my policy for nonpayment in the amount of $153. When I called to ask what the notice was about, I was told that they never received the form.

But how would I know they never received it? You think they would email or call me? I never received any contact from them until this. I asked that they email me the form to complete again, and now they said they are going to bill me extra for those 6 months that I had the extra coverage, even though I did not request it and I returned the form in a timely manner. They said if I dont pay, they will cancel my policy, which again, I paid in full upon ordering the policy.Desired Settlement: I would like them to not charge me anything additional than the full amount I prepaid, as I did not order the policy charges they are billing me for. I do not want the policy canceled.

Business

Response:

Ms. [redacted] purchased a Motorcycle Insurance policy with Markel American Insurance Company (MAIC) on August 21, 2014. Upon purchase, she chose not to purchase uninsured and underinsured liability coverages. Per insurance regulations, MAIC notified Ms. [redacted] that signed coverage rejection forms were needed in order to fulfill this request, or MAIC would be obligated to add those specific coverages to the policy back to the original policy effective date. Ms. [redacted] was sent several notifications that these forms were needed. In addition, Ms. [redacted] was sent an endorsement notification of the added uninsured and underinsured coverages that resulted from the absence of signed coverage rejection forms. This endorsement notification was sent to her address on file on 9/22/14, and an invoice for the additional premium due was sent to Ms. [redacted] on 9/23/14

Review: A purse of a guest was stolen. I reported the loss and was told it was not covered but the agent was not familiar with the liability part of the plan. She transferred me to another person. I have since left sever messages and email and have not receive assistance.Desired Settlement: I would like a to file a claim and receive payment for the loss. If not covered I want to be shown were in the policy it states it is not covered

Business

Response:

Thank you for extending the time to respond to the above complaint to Monday, December 16,

2013. Please accept the following as Markel American Insurance Company's response in the

above referenced matter. Markel Service Incorporated is the claims service manager for Markel

American Insurance Company ("MAIC").

MAIC issued a Special Event Liability Insurance Policy, Policy Number [redacted], effective

9/23/13, for an event that occurred on 11/16/2013. The policy was issued to [redacted] and D.

[redacted] with liability limits of $1,000,000 and a $1,000 property damage deductible.

Notice of this claim was received electronically on November 18, 2013 .. · An acknowledgement

letter was issued on November 19, 2013. A property adjuster contacted Ms. [redacted] on November

19th and determined it was not her purse stolen, but her sisters. The claim was reassigned to a

liability unit for handling. That adjuster attempted contact on November 21" but left a message.

Another call was made on November 25th and another message was left. Contact was ultimately

made on December 9th at which time Ms. [redacted] reported they were setting up for her daughter's

wedding, and Ms. [redacted] and her sister were unloading the insured's truck and someone stole the

purse. The truck was parked in a fenced lot. Ms. [redacted] was advised that her sister would need to

provide an inventory of items stolen along with replacement prices and/or receipts and that we

would continue our liability investigation and get back with her.

We have requested specific information from Ms. [redacted], including the contact information for her

sister which she will not provide. Ms. [redacted] responded she is not going to have her guest go to the

trouble of digging through records and contacting banks if in the end it's determined the loss is

not covered. Based on our investigation to date, we will be issuing a reservation of rights letter

based on Duties in the Event of Loss Or Damage along with two additional policy exclusions that

may apply.

Once our investigation is finalized, we will be notifying our policyholder in writing of our

response.

Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I returned 2 calls from this company with several call attempts and no response before I filed this complaint. I also communicated with them by email and was told I would be contacted. After I filed this complaint I did get a call from them and was given the run around. They tried to say the loss was not covered, than I was not liable for the loss because I did not do anything wrong, than the venue was liable because they did not have enough security. The end result was she would check the plan language to see if it was covered and id it was she would let me know what other info they needed and if not she would state were in the policy the exclusion was stated. The next time I heard from her was a email requesting additional information of wick was a list of items lost and receipts for the items. I was told this info was needed to determine liability. I told her I would get her all the info she requested except the receipts (if they can even be found) until it is determined it the loss is covered because this would take a great deal of time for the person who lost the purse to do. She than agreed. below are the email with the claims person. The letter they sent on 11-19 was just received 12-11. This really is not a difficult case. All they need to do is review the policy to determine if is a covered liability, If it is than gather all information and conduct a investigation. If its determined there was a loss due to theft that request info need for items lost and complete a claim. This case has not been handle in any logical way. First they tried to avoid my contact, than they tried to make excuses to why the loss was not covered, than they did not explain the review process. To date I have provided them with a description of the incident, contact info for the venue and copy of contract with the venue. I am waiting for contact info for the person who lost the purse, a list of items lost, and police report number. This info will be provide as soon as I get it.

Review: I was purchasing motorcycle insurance over the phone and Markel Insurance company asked me if I wanted Personal Injury Protection Coverage. I declined coverage. After receiving insurance I went on an extended vacation. In that time I had my phone available. In the billing cycle for October Markel withdrew an additional $93 for Personal Injury coverage without my authorization. When I called Markel they claimed that I was notified by mail that if I didn't deny the Personal Injury coverage in writing that I would be charged for the coverage. This was not communicated to me when I was purchasing the policy. Later I was not called on my phone and was not aware they were going to charge for insurance I had specifically rejected on the phone. When I called on Oct 20 and was informed that they wanted a faxed/emailed copy of my rejection and I sent it to them. I was told that the coverage, although not used, was still going to be charged. I immediately cancelled my coverage. I feel that the failure to communicate that a hard copy of my rejection of Personal injury was required of me when I was ordering the insurance on Aug 21 was deceptive and I am due a refund for the insurance I specifically rejected, did not use and did not want. Although I was sent a letter concerning the requirement it came more than a month after I had signed up for the insurance and while I was on vacation. I also feel it is bad business practice to withdraw money from someone's personal checking account without authorization.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of $93.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] purchased a motorcycle insurance policy with Markel American Insurance Company (MAIC) on August 19, 2015. At the time of purchase Mr. [redacted] enrolled in the automatic payments option. Upon purchase, Mr. [redacted] chose not to buy personal injury protection coverage. MAIC included with the policy documents a coverage rejection form. The form indicates “If you fail to complete and return this form, your policy will be endorsed with Personal Injury Protection Coverage for an additional premium charge”. In addition the welcome letter included with the policy documents outlined this requirement. A follow up request for the rejection form was sent to Mr. [redacted] 30 days after his policy was issued. Per regulations, we must have a signed rejection form for every policy without this coverage. It is our practice that if the rejection form is not signed and returned within 30 days, the coverage is added to the policy as of the policy effective date and the premium for this additional coverage charged. If the rejection form is received at a later date the coverage is removed as of the date the rejection form is received. Mr. [redacted] noted in his complaint that he did not use the coverage and therefore is requesting a refund. However, the personal injury protection coverage was available to him should a need have arisen.Upon review of the special circumstances Mr. [redacted] faced during his policy period, MAIC has made an exception to normal practice and will refund Mr. [redacted] the full Personal Injury Protection premium, as well as the portion of his original premium that was unused. The total refund amount of $143.29 is being issued to Mr. [redacted] today.We hope that this has resolved Mr. [redacted]’ complaint and appreciate the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I did authorize automatic payment through my checking

account but the amount withdrawn was more than I authorized. By rejecting personal injury protection

coverage when applying for policy over the phone I did not approve of any fees

for insurance coverage I rejected. Authorizing

access to my account should not give Markel Insurance a “blank check” to

withdraw any amount they choose. The

amount in question more than doubled the policy cost. When I read the policy declaration

page there was no mention of additional documents required and I didn’t read

all the additional pages of the policy. My

signature on policy was done electronically which didn’t require that I sign

off on coverage I rejected. The requirement

that there be an additional document signed off by a physical signature that

had to be mailed, faxed or scanned into a digital form and emailed was not

conveyed to me at time of purchase nor is it required by other insurance

companies (Liberty Mutual, Esurance) that I have consulted.However, since I did receive a refund for the disputed

amount I am willing to look past this incident as a case of miscommunication

and would be amiable to restarting my policy with the provision that payment of

premium is not automatically withdrawn from my account.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: the company overcharged me for my insurance, cancelled my insurance six days after I called and cancelled it, failed to call me with any issues with my insurance, tried numerous times to collected money out of my account that was already paid, refused to refund me any of my deposit that was not used, refused to work out the issue on the phone. I am very upset over this situation I paid 352 dollars to them as the deposit, I had a month and seven days of service they took the whole deposit, it should've only been 188 for the first month and 44 for the seven days, they are refusing to pay me the difference (around 120), they are also very rude and laughed at me on the phone because I was getting upset. I am pregnant and this is just not right... They also highly over charged me for my coverage but thats neither here nor there I just want my unused but of my deposit back, this is highly illegal they should not be in business.Desired Settlement: I would like them to refunded me the unused part of my deposit..

Business

Response:

Response to Ms. [redacted] Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]As noted in our phone conversation with the Bureau on January 5, 2015, the insurer issuing coverage to Ms. [redacted] is Markel American Insurance Company. On October 19, 2014 Ms. [redacted] purchased a motorcycle insurance policy with Markel American Insurance Company (“MAIC”). The information provided to MAIC at the time of the purchase indicated that Ms. [redacted] carried a valid motorcycle endorsement, and had no applicable accidents or moving violations on her record. Based on this information MAIC issued a policy. As a part of the normal underwriting process, MAIC requested a Motor Vehicle Record for Ms. [redacted] and discovered that there were inaccuracies in the information provided at time of application. MAIC notified Ms. [redacted] that the premium would be adjusted to reflect the change in the risk being insured.On November 25, 2014, Ms. [redacted] called MAIC’s Customer Service team to cancel her motorcycle insurance policy due to the increased premium. Her policy was canceled effective that day. Ms. [redacted] was told at the time that any unearned premium would be refunded to her in the next few weeks.The policy issued Ms. [redacted] allows for 90% pro rata unearned premium refund when policy cancellation is at the insureds request. The portion of premium owed MAIC for 37 days of coverage and the additional 10% unearned premium amounts to $481.00. This pro-rata rating procedure is approved by the Virginia Department of Insurance, and is a common practice across most motorcycle insurers. Ms. [redacted] had paid $352.30 therefore there was no unearned premium to be refunded.We appreciate having the opportunity to insure Ms. [redacted] and are disappointed that she was unable to keep her policy with us.

Consumer

Response: