Complaint Involves: Billing or Collection IssuesDear-Beth,I am responding to your letter dated 2/27/addressed to [redacted] , regarding the abovementioned complaint.The complainant enrolled in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) on 6/13/2013, allowing us towithdraw funds from the designated financial institution to satisfy their elected premium paymentplanA withdrawal attempt was made on 12/13/2016, which was returned as the account wasidentified as closedAs is consistent with our policy documented on both our invoices andwebsite, a $fee will be applied for a Return ItemOn 12/29/a Past Due Invoice was sentto the complainant, which included the $Return Item FeeOn 1/6/we received an"Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Change Form" from the complainant requesting a change to thefinancial institution information, which we then changed accordingly.We provide FAQ's on both our public facing website, as well as the policyholder secured sitewhich includes a FAQ for "What if I change financial institutions?" and we also provide an EFTChange Form on our website.While the onus is on the policyholder to notify us of any changes to their EFT information, as aonetime courtesy, we will waive the $Return Item Fee for the complainant.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Thomas *Director, Corporate ServicesMERCHANTS Insurance groupMain Street • PO Box Buffalo, New York • T (716) 849-
Merchants did accept liability for the damages sustained to Mr. ***’s vehicle as a result of the accident on 8/13/14. Merchants paid in full for the repairs required to the vehicle which included a “like, kind and quality” (LKQ) door assembly for his 2008 Toyota Camry. The repair appraisal states... that if a part used in the repair voids the warranty on the part being replaced or any other part, the part will be warranted by the manufacturer or the insurance company for equal to or better than the original warranty. The parts used in the repair did not void the original warranty as the six year old vehicle was already out of the original manufacturer’s warranty. The LKQ door assembly used in the repair did provide a 30 day warranty which the original door assembly no longer had. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] did not report a problem to the repair shop until December 2015, sixteen months after the repairs were completed and well beyond the 30 day warranty period provided. Window regulators fail frequently for a variety of reasons and eight years is well beyond the expected useful life of the part. Had an OEM part been used in the repair, the Pennsylvania law allows for betterment to be taken. In this case, the part would have depreciated by 90% or more and Mr. [redacted] would have been responsible for the difference. Merchants feels that it met its obligation in restoring Mr. ***’s vehicle to its pre accident condition and is not responsible for a part failure that occurs sixteen months after the work was completed. Unfortunately, Mr. ***’s vehicle is at the age where mechanical part failures can be expected and are not due to or the result of the accident that occurred almost two years ago. When Mr. [redacted] reported the failing motor to the repair shop sixteen months after the repair was completed, the shop contacted the independent appraiser, not Merchants. The appraiser informed the shop that too much time had passed for any reasonable expectation that the part would be warranted. We do apologize that the adjuster had failed to update her voicemail message but Mr. [redacted] did talk to her supervisor on the day he called and was given an explanation of our position.
Complaint Involves: Billing or Collection IssuesDear-Beth,I am responding to your letter dated 2/27/2017 addressed to [redacted], regarding the abovementioned complaint.The complainant enrolled in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) on 6/13/2013, allowing us towithdraw funds from the designated...
financial institution to satisfy their elected premium paymentplan. A withdrawal attempt was made on 12/13/2016, which was returned as the account wasidentified as closed. As is consistent with our policy documented on both our invoices andwebsite, a $25 fee will be applied for a Return Item. On 12/29/2016 a Past Due Invoice was sentto the complainant, which included the $25 Return Item Fee. On 1/6/2017 we received an"Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Change Form" from the complainant requesting a change to thefinancial institution information, which we then changed accordingly.We provide FAQ's on both our public facing website, as well as the policyholder secured sitewhich includes a FAQ for "What if I change financial institutions?" and we also provide an EFTChange Form on our website.While the onus is on the policyholder to notify us of any changes to their EFT information, as aonetime courtesy, we will waive the $25 Return Item Fee for the complainant.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Thomas *Director, Corporate ServicesMERCHANTS Insurance group250 Main Street • PO Box 903 Buffalo, New York 14240 • T (716) 849-3333
Merchants did accept liability for the damages sustained to Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle as a result of the accident on 8/13/14. Merchants paid in full for the repairs required to the vehicle which included a “like, kind and quality” (LKQ) door assembly for his 2008 Toyota Camry. The repair appraisal states...
that if a part used in the repair voids the warranty on the part being replaced or any other part, the part will be warranted by the manufacturer or the insurance company for equal to or better than the original warranty. The parts used in the repair did not void the original warranty as the six year old vehicle was already out of the original manufacturer’s warranty. The LKQ door assembly used in the repair did provide a 30 day warranty which the original door assembly no longer had. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] did not report a problem to the repair shop until December 2015, sixteen months after the repairs were completed and well beyond the 30 day warranty period provided. Window regulators fail frequently for a variety of reasons and eight years is well beyond the expected useful life of the part. Had an OEM part been used in the repair, the Pennsylvania law allows for betterment to be taken. In this case, the part would have depreciated by 90% or more and Mr. [redacted] would have been responsible for the difference. Merchants feels that it met its obligation in restoring Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle to its pre accident condition and is not responsible for a part failure that occurs sixteen months after the work was completed. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle is at the age where mechanical part failures can be expected and are not due to or the result of the accident that occurred almost two years ago. When Mr. [redacted] reported the failing motor to the repair shop sixteen months after the repair was completed, the shop contacted the independent appraiser, not Merchants. The appraiser informed the shop that too much time had passed for any reasonable expectation that the part would be warranted. We do apologize that the adjuster had failed to update her voicemail message but Mr. [redacted] did talk to her supervisor on the day he called and was given an explanation of our position.
Complaint Involves: Billing or Collection IssuesDear-Beth,I am responding to your letter dated 2/27/addressed to [redacted] , regarding the abovementioned complaint.The complainant enrolled in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) on 6/13/2013, allowing us towithdraw funds from the designated financial institution to satisfy their elected premium paymentplanA withdrawal attempt was made on 12/13/2016, which was returned as the account wasidentified as closedAs is consistent with our policy documented on both our invoices andwebsite, a $fee will be applied for a Return ItemOn 12/29/a Past Due Invoice was sentto the complainant, which included the $Return Item FeeOn 1/6/we received an"Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Change Form" from the complainant requesting a change to thefinancial institution information, which we then changed accordingly.We provide FAQ's on both our public facing website, as well as the policyholder secured sitewhich includes a FAQ for "What if I change financial institutions?" and we also provide an EFTChange Form on our website.While the onus is on the policyholder to notify us of any changes to their EFT information, as aonetime courtesy, we will waive the $Return Item Fee for the complainant.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Thomas *Director, Corporate ServicesMERCHANTS Insurance groupMain Street • PO Box Buffalo, New York • T (716) 849-
Merchants did accept liability for the damages sustained to Mr. ***’s vehicle as a result of the accident on 8/13/14. Merchants paid in full for the repairs required to the vehicle which included a “like, kind and quality” (LKQ) door assembly for his 2008 Toyota Camry. The repair appraisal states... that if a part used in the repair voids the warranty on the part being replaced or any other part, the part will be warranted by the manufacturer or the insurance company for equal to or better than the original warranty. The parts used in the repair did not void the original warranty as the six year old vehicle was already out of the original manufacturer’s warranty. The LKQ door assembly used in the repair did provide a 30 day warranty which the original door assembly no longer had. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] did not report a problem to the repair shop until December 2015, sixteen months after the repairs were completed and well beyond the 30 day warranty period provided. Window regulators fail frequently for a variety of reasons and eight years is well beyond the expected useful life of the part. Had an OEM part been used in the repair, the Pennsylvania law allows for betterment to be taken. In this case, the part would have depreciated by 90% or more and Mr. [redacted] would have been responsible for the difference. Merchants feels that it met its obligation in restoring Mr. ***’s vehicle to its pre accident condition and is not responsible for a part failure that occurs sixteen months after the work was completed. Unfortunately, Mr. ***’s vehicle is at the age where mechanical part failures can be expected and are not due to or the result of the accident that occurred almost two years ago. When Mr. [redacted] reported the failing motor to the repair shop sixteen months after the repair was completed, the shop contacted the independent appraiser, not Merchants. The appraiser informed the shop that too much time had passed for any reasonable expectation that the part would be warranted. We do apologize that the adjuster had failed to update her voicemail message but Mr. [redacted] did talk to her supervisor on the day he called and was given an explanation of our position.
Complaint Involves: Billing or Collection IssuesDear-Beth,I am responding to your letter dated 2/27/2017 addressed to [redacted], regarding the abovementioned complaint.The complainant enrolled in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) on 6/13/2013, allowing us towithdraw funds from the designated...
financial institution to satisfy their elected premium paymentplan. A withdrawal attempt was made on 12/13/2016, which was returned as the account wasidentified as closed. As is consistent with our policy documented on both our invoices andwebsite, a $25 fee will be applied for a Return Item. On 12/29/2016 a Past Due Invoice was sentto the complainant, which included the $25 Return Item Fee. On 1/6/2017 we received an"Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Change Form" from the complainant requesting a change to thefinancial institution information, which we then changed accordingly.We provide FAQ's on both our public facing website, as well as the policyholder secured sitewhich includes a FAQ for "What if I change financial institutions?" and we also provide an EFTChange Form on our website.While the onus is on the policyholder to notify us of any changes to their EFT information, as aonetime courtesy, we will waive the $25 Return Item Fee for the complainant.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,Thomas *Director, Corporate ServicesMERCHANTS Insurance group250 Main Street • PO Box 903 Buffalo, New York 14240 • T (716) 849-3333
Merchants did accept liability for the damages sustained to Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle as a result of the accident on 8/13/14. Merchants paid in full for the repairs required to the vehicle which included a “like, kind and quality” (LKQ) door assembly for his 2008 Toyota Camry. The repair appraisal states...
that if a part used in the repair voids the warranty on the part being replaced or any other part, the part will be warranted by the manufacturer or the insurance company for equal to or better than the original warranty. The parts used in the repair did not void the original warranty as the six year old vehicle was already out of the original manufacturer’s warranty. The LKQ door assembly used in the repair did provide a 30 day warranty which the original door assembly no longer had. Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] did not report a problem to the repair shop until December 2015, sixteen months after the repairs were completed and well beyond the 30 day warranty period provided. Window regulators fail frequently for a variety of reasons and eight years is well beyond the expected useful life of the part. Had an OEM part been used in the repair, the Pennsylvania law allows for betterment to be taken. In this case, the part would have depreciated by 90% or more and Mr. [redacted] would have been responsible for the difference. Merchants feels that it met its obligation in restoring Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle to its pre accident condition and is not responsible for a part failure that occurs sixteen months after the work was completed. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle is at the age where mechanical part failures can be expected and are not due to or the result of the accident that occurred almost two years ago. When Mr. [redacted] reported the failing motor to the repair shop sixteen months after the repair was completed, the shop contacted the independent appraiser, not Merchants. The appraiser informed the shop that too much time had passed for any reasonable expectation that the part would be warranted. We do apologize that the adjuster had failed to update her voicemail message but Mr. [redacted] did talk to her supervisor on the day he called and was given an explanation of our position.