Mercury Insurance Group

When Ms. [redacted] contacted her agent to add the vehicle, she gave the agent the vehicle ID number; however, she gave an ID number for a 2016 Nissan not a 2007 Nissan. The agent followed up with an email asking for photos of the 2016 vehicle and a revised copy of the policy was sent to the...

customer at the policy address on 1/16/17 which included identification cards for a 2016 Nissan not a 2007 Nissan. On 3/8/17, the agent contacted Ms. [redacted] to remind her that we still needed photos of the vehicle and this is when it was brought to our attention that she wanted a different vehicle covered. A change is being made to the policy to remove the 2016 Nissan and add the 2007 Nissan.

Dear Ms. [redacted]:We are in receipt of the consumer complaint for [redacted]. I have reviewed the claims file. I have left a telephone message for Mr. [redacted] to contact me to discuss his Medical Payments claim as well as address the other issues in his complaint. I look forward to discussing this...

further with him.Mr. [redacted]'s complaints included that (a) he believes his rates were raised $180 for no reason (b) he has not received compensation from the loss for his $700 in rental as well as deductible of $1,000, (c) he has not received compensation for his physical therapy bills.Our file reflects that when the responsible insurance carrier, Infinity, accepted liability in December, 2015, we issued Mr. [redacted]'s deductible check of $1000 and mailed it to the policy address which was in La Habra, California. We were unaware of Mr. [redacted]'s change of address until 7121/2016 when he emailed us his current mailing address. Prior to that point of time, we were never advised that he has moved. His insurance broker was also unaware that he had moved as they indicated in a phone call to us in May 2016, that they would find out from him if he had ever received his deductible check. They also said they would advise us if we had the correct mailing address. We never heard back from them. We have since placed a stop pay on the $1,000 check and will be re-issuing it to his mailing address in Newark, California.With respect to his rental bill, Mr. [redacted] has no rental coverage through Mercury Insurance. We had sent a subrogation demand to Infinity in August of 2015 with a copy of his rental bill. To date, Infinity has not paid us for our subrogation demand nor his rental bill. We have made several calls to them requesting status and sent a copy of his rental bill to them twice. In the next thirty days, we plan to pursue intercompany Arbitration if we receive no payment.In regards to his Medical Payments claim, we have re-opened that exposure to the claim. We spoke with him on 10/30/2015 and he advised us at the time that he was not presenting a Medical Payments claim for himself or any of the occupants in his car. Nonetheless, we will be reaching out to him to handle that claim. Lastly, with respect to the premium increase, I have consulted with the underwriting department. The accident had no bearing on his increase of $180. The increase was due to annual mileage and a rate filing.I have taken the liberty of carbon copying Mr. [redacted] on this letter.Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at the phone number below.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by...

the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved. I, [redacted], ask that the part of the premium that covers Roadside assistance be refunded to me.  This will resolve my complaint.
Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom it May Concern:      This loss occurred when our insured was sitting in his parked 2010 Mazda 3 with his door open.  A city bus passed by this car hitting the door as it went by.   The vehicle was towed to [redacted] Garage  body shop on 9/25/17...

and an inspection was set up.  The body shop ordered parts on 10/2/17.       The repairs were started and additional parts were ordered 10/5/17, 10/13/17, 10/23/17, and 10/24/17.     The body shop’s last order for parts was on 10/27/17.    All parts took no more than 3 days to receive other than the trim panel that was backordered.  The repairs were completed on 10/27/17 except for this trim panel.       The body shop has agreed to pay for one week of your rental for the delay in ordering the initial parts.  We are not responsible for any parts delays.      The adjuster handling the claim made contact with the city the first day she received the claim.   They requested forms be filled out and signed before they would review the claim.  The adjuster sent the forms the city needed to our insured on 9/29/17 already completed.   We just needed a signature to file these.        On 11/9/17, we received a denial from the City of San Francisco.  Cities frequently deny all claims initially.  Once we make the final payment to the body shop, we will send the matter to our subrogation (collections) department to see if they will be able to pursue the city for the damages paid out.   The photos of your vehicle may help prove that the bus was at fault.  We cannot reimburse your deductible at this time because the other party has not accepted liability.  This is a condition of your policy with Mercury Insurance.        [redacted], a Senior adjuster in my department, has done everything possible to resolve this claim as quickly as possible.   Because the damage was so extensive, more damage was found as the vehicle was torn down so more parts had to be ordered.   The total of the repairs was $4248.98.    Mercury Insurance only provides a total of 30 days of rental coverage on your policy but if there is any outstanding amounts not paid, we will add these to our demand to the city.   We cannot promise these funds will be reimbursed as door losses can be very difficult to prove.    If you have any further questions, you can contac[redacted] at 888-263-7287 ext [redacted].

Our records indicate that Mr. [redacted] requested to add his son [redacted] as a listed driver and a 2014 Toyota Camry on August 16, 2017. We processed the changes accordingly, generating an additional premium of $908.00 plus a $5.00 endorsement fee. Payment was not received; therefore, a notice of...

cancellation for non-payment of premium was mailed to the customer. On September 15, 2017, Mr. [redacted] requested to delete [redacted] as a listed driver and the 2014 Toyota. These changes were processed resulting in a return premium of $552.00. Since payment was not received, the policy canceled effective September 30, 2017.The August loss was covered and payment was made to the other party. Our claims department is still waiting for the customer's decision whether to repair his vehicle or cash out; however, the October 11, 2017 loss was not covered since the policy canceled final effective September 30, 2017.

Dear [redacted]:We are in receipt of your complaint addressed to the Revdex.com relative to the rear hub, bearing, and speed sensor issues with your 2004 Nissan Armada. You indicated that the desired outcome would be payment of your $500.00 deductible, reimbursement of the $109.95...

diagnostics fee and payment for the $950.00 for charges to fix those items. It appears theeuctible was paid to you on December 23" and the diagnostics fee was paid on December 31*.The check on the 31* was in the amount of $455.88. This represents the $109.95 diagnostics fee, $110.08 for parts and $235.85 for labor. Those amounts were paid based upon the receipts/invoices provided by you to Mercury for the work that had already been completed.We do not have any invoices relative to the remaining $729.97 that you have referenced. Please forward those receipts at your earliest convenience for our review.

Please refer to the attachment for the response to this complaint.     Thank you,[redacted]Mercury Select Management Company, Inc.

ATTN: Revdex.comID:[redacted] We have reviewed Ms. [redacted] complaint and have addressed the situation with her on December 11th. Mercury has now paid her for the additional part that was not on the original estimate based upon the receipts that Ms. [redacted] submitted to us. ...

Payment was issued to Ms. [redacted] for $367.96 on December 11th and that payment has been received and honored by Ms. [redacted]. [redacted]Mercury Insurance Services, LLCClaims Supervisor

The Company set Mrs. [redacted] Homeowners policy to non-renew due to loss frequency. However, should Mrs. [redacted] submit proof that the fence was replaced such as providing photos or receipts, we will gladly review the proof in order to lift the non-renewal status of her policy.

Mercury’s position in this matter is that our insured has not been proven to be at fault for the accident and the resulting damages and injuries.  The accident facts are disputed and as far as we are aware, there are no independent witnesses.  Our insured contends that he was traveling...

on Huntington Drive when the complainant's vehicle made a right turn onto Huntington Drive into the path of our insured who could not avoid colliding with the complainant's vehicle.  If the accident occurred as our insured contends, the driver of the complainant's vehicle would be at fault for making an unsafe right turn and failing to yield when proceeding from a red light. We understand that the complainant and the driver of the complainant's vehicle contend that the accident occurred when the complainant's vehicle was stopped at a red light preparing to make a right turn onto Huntington Drive when the complainant's vehicle was rear ended.  If the accident occurred as complainant and driver of the complainant's vehicle indicate, our insured would likely be at fault for rear ending the complainant's vehicle. The two versions of the accident are conflicting and there is no independent evidence to prove which version is correct.  As such, there is no evidence to prove that our insured is in fact at fault for this accident.  Mercury supports our insured’s version of the accident and we respectfully maintain our denial of liability.  However, if the complainant has any additional evidence that the complainant would like to present to us for reconsideration of this matter, we are open to reviewing any such additional evidence.

We are writing you in response to your recent inquiry with the Revdex.com regarding the claim for your 2006 Mercedes R350. It was reported that the gate of a storage facility closed on your vehicle causing damage. You reported that a police report was filed when management of the storage...

facility would not provide their insurance carrier information. We made contact with the San Diego Police department as well as the Chula Vista Police department and neither agency has a police report on file. As we cannot locate a police report to reference, we attempted to gather the insurance carrier information from the storage facility directly.[redacted] requesting their insurance carrier information and to date, there has not been a response.As you do not carry comprehensive coverage for the 2006 Mercedes R350, our options to pursue are limited. You were advised that the matter may need to be pursued civilly through Small Claims Court with a complaint against Phoenix Tow / Storage for your damages if they continue to be unresponsive. Should the owner of Phoenix Tow / Storage respond back with their carrier information, we will assist with establishing a claim on your behalf and provide you with the contact information for that carrier to seek resolution of your damages through that carrier directly. If you have any further questions, please contact your claims adjuster [redacted]

Good afternoon,

I appreciate them taking care of the rental until 12/01/16. Fyi the body shop only talked/contact information with [redacted] since  mercury did not put me down. I suggest that mercury puts down the person who was involved in the accident as well as the policy holder on all claims! Lastly I want to make sure that mercury still fights for this claim as it is a right as their policy holder and member. the car was also not dropped off to the body shop but picked up using mercury. I suggest that mercury gets in the habit of

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Not only did I complain about the response time but also about coverage and I
have opened an investigation with the Department of Insurance.  When I
purchased coverage from Mercury, I was told that coverage would follow me in
any car that I drove.  Since this is an issue, Dealerships should also be
sure cars are not removed from their lot until there is coverage on the
vehicle.  Mercury is claiming that the car is not covered because my
Mother is on title in first position on the car and excluded from the
policy.  However, I too am on title and title was written in both our names
where we have equal ownership to make decisions.  My Mother does not drive
so she was excluded from the policy.  Because my Mother is not on title I
was told the claim was rejected which is outrageous when I was the one driving
and had the accident.  They called this  special circumstance and the car was not covered because it was not added to my policy.  Also, I was told that I had 10 days to add any car I purchased to the policy.  None of this is now being honored. Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com <[email protected]> You have a new message waiting for you from the Revdex.com in regards to consumer complaint #[redacted]. Please click on the link below to access the online dispute resolution web site and read this message. If a response is required, please respond through the system, using the link provided. Click here to see the message If your email program does not support HTML copy and paste the link below into your browser http://odrcomplaint.Revdex.com.org/odrweb/Home/SecureLogin.aspx?SecureLinkGuid=[...⇄ To [redacted]@att.net Apr 10 at 3:57 PM Reply Reply to All Forward More [redacted]@att.net Ref: ID [redacted] ( reply) As stated in my earlier communique, Mercury/[redacted] was not only expressly informed in August, 2016, that my lease would terminate February 27, 2017, but I paid up to march 1, 2017…. ( $166.00 ), while specifically stating I desired to discontinue coverage, thus paying the amount quoted by [redacted] in August, 2016. Not only was it EXPRESSED, but my action of paying the amount due for the remainder of my lease period was EXPLICITLY implied. My mode of payment cha To Revdex.com Today at 11:42 AM

Ref: ID [redacted] ( reply) As stated in my earlier communique, Mercury/[redacted] was not only expressly informed in August, 2016, that my lease would terminate February 27, 2017, but I paid up to march 1, 2017…. ( $166.00 ), while specifically stating I desired to discontinue coverage, thus paying the amount quoted by [redacted] in August, 2016. Not only was it EXPRESSED, but my action of paying the amount due for the remainder of my lease period was EXPLICITLY implied. My mode of payment changed.I did not state that change was temporary, nor I did not orally or in writing give Mercury my permission to REINSTATE the old auto pay. Assuming my information had been succinctly communicated to Mercury and [redacted] , no further action from me was necessary The steps I took For making my intention known, demonstrated no ambiguity in my statements or actions.Terminate my auto policy/coverages as of 2/27/2017Stop auto pay Call [redacted] after 3/1/2017 for any refund There were no funds taken from my bank account after August 2016 ( until March 2, 2017 ), signaling Mercury was aware my mode of payment had changed and I would no longer be on auto payment ( as per the payment of $166.00 ) and notice of my lease termination. If indeed I desired to remain on auto pay after August, 2016, Certainly I would not have paid the lump sum payment. Obviously Mercury could not insure a vehicle I no longer owned or held in my possession after 2/27/2017. ( As per your statement ) “removed comprehensive and collision coverage 2/26/2017” is baffling because “total coverage” should have Terminated, not partial. Why would comprehensive and collision (partial coverage ) terminate on 2/26/2017 given no coverage was no longer necessary at all? The CANCELLATION REQUEST/POLICY RELEASE signed by me on 3/7 and faxed to [redacted]/Mercury is dated by [redacted] on 3/7/2017 with an effective date and hour of cancellation of 2/26/2017. During my extensive conversation with [redacted] in August, 2016, I inquired about the refund amount from Feb. 27 thru March 1. I was told to call after 2/27/2017 for the refund. Since it appears a premium of $57.96 became effective, supposedly in January, I received no notification of any remaining balance owing for the remaining period, after having already paid for those months in August. It appears there was a disconnect or no communication between Mercury and [redacted] as to my wishes. Your communique confirms this lack of communication. The various dates expressed on the Cancellation form proves Mercury either intentionally chose its own cancellation date and/or ignored the dates on the returned cancellation form signed by me.It appears Mercury is giving me its version, while disregarding all the “expressed and implied actions” by me. I attempted to resolve this issue through conversation; the response from Mercury being….. call [redacted] or from [redacted]…. call Mercury. Again, if you check your records, you will find the cancellation form with a cancellation date of 2/26/2017, dated and signed on 2/26/2017. Obviously, this does not agree with your assertion. [redacted]

Mercury Indemnity Company of Georgia, has conducted a thorough review of the claim and its investigation. We obtained statements from both drivers involved in the loss. We were unable to secure any statement from the witness to the loss as they were not identified by the police report. Each driver...

had conflicting statements. The police report confirmed both parties had been consistent in their statements regarding liability in this loss.   The driver of the claimant’s vehicle was making a left hand turn across traffic without right of way, by all versions of the loss. Although our insured was cited in this loss there is no corroborating evidence to support the claim made.  All parties agreed that the accident occurred in the center turn lane. The only contested item was why our insured was in the center turn lane at the time of the loss. Our insured remains adamant it was because he swerved left and braked to avoid contact with the claimants vehicle. Consequently the loss occurred in the center turn lane instead of the left through lane. By all standards the turning vehicle had the greater duty when turning left across traffic.   Given the information we have to date we have denied liability in this word versus word dispute. Georgia law bars recovery for any party 50% or more at fault. As such no payment will be made on this claim.   An official liability denial letter has been mailed to the claimant.

Attached

To whom it may concern,
As a matter of customer service, California Automobile Insurance Company issued a $900.00 payment to Enterpirse Rental Company on October 7, 2014 on behalf of [redacted] The $900.00 payment represents the maximum amount of coverage payable under Ms. [redacted]...

policy ($30.00 per day for a maximum of 30 days). Ms. Karr was informed of our decision to pay the full policy limit on October 2, 2014. With the issuance of this check the matter has been resolved.
 
Thank you,
[redacted]

Mercury Insurance Company worked together with the dealership to arrive at an accurate diagnosis of your vehicle. We have never received any complaints in regards to such practices you mentioned from this facility. If you have any new information that would declare the damage to the Electronic Suspension Compressor to be related to the loss, please feel free to contact us and we will re-review this matter.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Me [redacted]? Man, these guys can't even get their customers strait. Notice he's addressing Mr [redacted], who is the other driver. I'm  rejecting this claim because it's a lie. First off, I was called by several people stating they were employed by Mercury in order to get my insurance claim. I'd like an explanation. I spoke with someone last week and I got a pretty colorful story which I will be adding in my next complaint. When I dropped my car off, the damage In question was discussed and it was accepted as being from the accident. And to be clear, it's not the front bumper. It's the bottom of the car near the front wheel. I'm filing a complaint with the city attory office this afternoon. 
Regards,
[redacted]