[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
This letter is in follow up the most recent communication from [redacted] regarding the claim. Upon receipt of [redacted]’s follow up the timeline provided on our original response was reviewed for accuracy. Our records have verified the investigation timeline that was provided in our original response. Please see our timeline below.
[redacted] called in the above mentioned claim by phone on Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1:28 PM. It is important to note here that all contact information was provided by [redacted] directly. The claim was assigned to adjuster [redacted]. [redacted] placed a call to [redacted] at the only phone number he provided; the log time of the call was 2:53 PM on the same date. There was no response and a message was left.
Contact was established with [redacted] on Monday, September 15, 2014. During this conversation he indicated that the unit was replaced over the weekend. [redacted] obtained the contact information for [redacted] at [redacted] and called him on this same date. A message was left for [redacted] and not immediately returned.
[redacted] established contact with [redacted] from [redacted] on Tuesday September 16, 2014. [redacted] asked [redacted] if the unit was available for inspection. [redacted] indicated that the unit had been disposed of and was not available for inspection. [redacted] asked if there was anything available for inspection and it was repeated that the unit had already been disposed of.
Based on our lack of ability to inspect the unit to confirm lightning damage, the claim was sent to management for denial review on Wednesday September 17, 2014. After approval by management, the claim was denied and the customer was called. A letter stating our position was mailed to [redacted] on this same date.
With respect to [redacted]’s questions at the end of the letter, we are required to consider any new information that may change our position. As stated in our previous response, [redacted]’s conversation with the HVAC representative indicated that there was nothing to inspect as the unit had been disposed of. We would consider photos, parts, written diagnostic records dated on or before the replacement or any other type of evidence [redacted] or his vendor can provide. All submitted evidence is subject to verification that it is genuine to [redacted]’s damaged unit. Evidence that cannot be verified will not be considered. Accepting evidence for review does not guarantee a change in our coverage position.
If no further information is submitted for consideration, Grange Insurance will remain with our previously stated position and will consider the matter closed. Please contact me at ###-###-#### with any questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Grange Mutual Casualty Company [redacted]
[redacted]8
PH: ###-###-####
Email: [redacted]
In response to your correspondence dated March 6,2015, I have reviewed the above captionedclaim and respond accordingly.This accident occurred on February 1, 2015 when our insured, [redacted], drove his 2013Hyundai Elantra over a pile of snow recently plowed from a side street. This resulted...
in damageto the front bumper and fog lights. It was reported to [redacted] Insurance Company on February2nd by [redacted]. Claim Representative [redacted] made contact with [redacted]the same day and made arrangements for the vehicle to be inspected. The inspection wascompleted on February 3rd and a payment of $761.08, reflecting a $500 collision deductible, wasissued on February 4th.[redacted] spoke with [redacted] on the February 4th to advise of the payment and obtain thename of the body shop [redacted] was using for repairs. [redacted] advised hisappointment was scheduled for February 10th and [redacted] would be completing repairson the vehicle. A rental reservation through [redacted] was then scheduled for two days whichwas adequate time for the repairs to be completed. [redacted] received a voicernail from [redacted]on February 16th and was advised there was additional damage to the undercarriage. [redacted] calledback immediately and left the body shop a voicemail asking them to fax a supplemental estimateto his attention. After repeated attempts to contact [redacted], the supplement was notreceived from the body shop until February 26th. The vehicle was promptly re-inspected thatsame day and a supplemental payment was issued directly to [redacted]. Including thesupplement, this was no more than a two day repair. [redacted] extended the rental to February 23rdfor a total of 13 days. It is our position that the delays in the repair were a direct result of thebody shop's inability to provide requested documentation in a timely manner. We havesuggested our insured to pursue the shop for any additional consideration.[redacted] Insurance Company believes we have fulfilled our rental reimbursement obligation incovering the rental costs for the period of time reasonably required to repair [redacted]covered auto. If you have further questions or I can provide any additional information regardingthis matter, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####, extension [redacted]Sincerely,[redacted]
Grange Insurance has promptly responded to every claim presented by [redacted] in writing as requested. Grange Insurance provided the claimant with a very detailed market
search supporting a value of $5733.28 (plus taxes and fees). This value included a deduction for unrelated prior...
damage to the vehicle. The fair market value was determined based on a thorough regional search that included 23 comparable vehicles that are currently for sale or that have recently sold. The report included specific details about the vehicles, including the year, make, model, VIN, mileage, address, and seller phone number. This market valuation also included some of the comparable vehicles provided by the claimant that had contact information and could be verified.
Grange has requested information regarding the passenger’s injuries sustained in the accident and corresponding medical treatment, but have received no information from her.
Total loss paperwork was sent to [redacted] as soon as possible to help expedite the settlement of his claim.
Based on [redacted] law, the proper elements of damage to personal property include necessary and reasonable expenses incurred due to the damage of the personal property. [redacted] law does not consider the alleged time and energy [redacted] spent researching vehicles, doing legal research and having legal consultations as reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the property damage to his vehicle.
Grange has fairly evaluated the market value of [redacted] vehicle and provided a rental vehicle for 16 days.
When I spoke with my attorney, he pointed out that never will an insurance company insure a vehicle that is not being paid for. I was only paying for the s10. You claim it is your right to receive debt, but you have no proof showing that the Dodge Ram would have been covered during that 6 month term until after you back dated it. I have the email showing I e-signed the document to drop the s10 and that it was dropped effective 3/06/14. I have the policy sent to me saying the Dodge Ram was added and effective 3/7/14 ( which led me the believe that everything including my monthly payments I paid every month on or before its due date was correct and accurate). I do understand that our policy for that term ended on 3/20/14 and a new term was in effect from 3/20-9/20, but with the information I received at when adding the Dodge Ram on 3/07 I assumed everything was still correct and accurate. I have the policy premiums your company sent me ( the month of Sept) that only covers the s10 prior to your company "back dating" the Ram. I also have the email from the agent after he figured out what the issue was
stating he did not check the proper box and that your company claimed
we had coverage (even though we weren't paying for it). It is easy for you to say NOW that the Ram would have been covered had an incident occurred, but had an incident actually occurred during that 6 month term, before you back dated there is not one document showing you really would have covered, only your word which I do not feel is trustworthy after the run around I got with your company trying to get answers about this situation. I paid a monthly premium which I thought I was being charged appropriated for but now I am being charged for something that there is not proof I would have been about to use had I needed it at that time, which is very unfair.
I am still requesting for your company to dismiss the bill or request the money from the broker which is responsible for the mistake.
I am attaching the email from the agent as well as the documentation I have to believe the s10 was dropped along with the premium summary showings the Dodge was added in March and then the premium summary in Sept showing the s10 still being covered.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
This letter is in follow up the most recent communication from [redacted]i regarding the claim. Upon receipt of [redacted]i’s follow up the timeline provided on our original response was reviewed for accuracy. Our records have verified the investigation timeline that was provided in our original response. Please see our timeline below.
[redacted] called in the above mentioned claim by phone on Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1:28 PM. It is important to note here that all contact information was provided by [redacted]i directly. The claim was assigned to adjuster [redacted]. [redacted] placed a call to [redacted] at the only phone number he provided; the log time of the call was 2:53 PM on the same date. There was no response and a message was left.
Contact was established with [redacted] on Monday, September 15, 2014. During this conversation he indicated that the unit was replaced over the weekend. [redacted] obtained the contact information for [redacted] at [redacted] and called him on this same date. A message was left for [redacted] and not immediately returned.
[redacted] established contact with [redacted] from [redacted] on Tuesday September 16, 2014. [redacted] asked [redacted] if the unit was available for inspection. [redacted] indicated that the unit had been disposed of and was not available for inspection. [redacted] asked if there was anything available for inspection and it was repeated that the unit had already been disposed of.
Based on our lack of ability to inspect the unit to confirm lightning damage, the claim was sent to management for denial review on Wednesday September 17, 2014. After approval by management, the claim was denied and the customer was called. A letter stating our position was mailed to [redacted] on this same date.
With respect to [redacted]’s questions at the end of the letter, we are required to consider any new information that may change our position. As stated in our previous response, [redacted]’s conversation with the HVAC representative indicated that there was nothing to inspect as the unit had been disposed of. We would consider photos, parts, written diagnostic records dated on or before the replacement or any other type of evidence [redacted] or his vendor can provide. All submitted evidence is subject to verification that it is genuine to [redacted]’s damaged unit. Evidence that cannot be verified will not be considered. Accepting evidence for review does not guarantee a change in our coverage position.
If no further information is submitted for consideration, Grange Insurance will remain with our previously stated position and will consider the matter closed. Please contact me at ###-###-#### with any questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Grange Mutual Casualty Company[redacted]
[redacted]
PH: ###-###-####
Email: [redacted]
Our apologies. There appears to have been a problem as we uploaded our response on November 6th.
[redacted] has been provided multiple copies of the market valuation report. I have attached a copy for the Revdex.com to review. The report includes very detailed information about each of the 23 comparables used to determine the value. [redacted] emailed a list of approximately fifty vehicles that he manually typed up. The list he created was void of any seller information and had very limited details about the vehicles. We made [redacted] aware of the missing information and explained why the list he typed up could not be considered. [redacted] then produced four comparable vehicles that included the necessary contact information. We included those in our evaluation, but they did not change the value of the vehicle.
[redacted] also advised us of a website he used to obtain a value. We reviewed the site and it actually returned a value in line with what was already offered.
I have attached a copy of the paid receipt showing we paid for 16 days of rental. In an effort to resolve [redacted]’ claim, we also waived the deduction for the unrelated prior damage.
On February 23, 2015, [redacted] phoned me and we discussed the situation and came to an agreement. I have since signed and mailed in the form he asked for and he in turn has released me in writing of the $49.56 premium due.Thank you for your help in resolving this case. I couldn't have done it alone.Yours truly,[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
This letter is in follow up the most recent communication from [redacted] regarding the claim. Upon receipt of [redacted]’s follow up the timeline provided on our original response was reviewed for accuracy. Our records have verified the investigation timeline that was provided in our original response. Please see our timeline below.
[redacted] called in the above mentioned claim by phone on Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1:28 PM. It is important to note here that all contact information was provided by [redacted] directly. The claim was assigned to adjuster [redacted]. [redacted] placed a call to [redacted] at the only phone number he provided; the log time of the call was 2:53 PM on the same date. There was no response and a message was left.
Contact was established with [redacted] on Monday, September 15, 2014. During this conversation he indicated that the unit was replaced over the weekend. [redacted] obtained the contact information for [redacted] at [redacted] and called him on this same date. A message was left for [redacted] and not immediately returned.
[redacted] established contact with [redacted] from [redacted] on Tuesday September 16, 2014. [redacted] asked [redacted] if the unit was available for inspection. [redacted] indicated that the unit had been disposed of and was not available for inspection. [redacted] asked if there was anything available for inspection and it was repeated that the unit had already been disposed of.
Based on our lack of ability to inspect the unit to confirm lightning damage, the claim was sent to management for denial review on Wednesday September 17, 2014. After approval by management, the claim was denied and the customer was called. A letter stating our position was mailed to [redacted] on this same date.
With respect to [redacted]’s questions at the end of the letter, we are required to consider any new information that may change our position. As stated in our previous response, [redacted]’s conversation with the HVAC representative indicated that there was nothing to inspect as the unit had been disposed of. We would consider photos, parts, written diagnostic records dated on or before the replacement or any other type of evidence [redacted] or his vendor can provide. All submitted evidence is subject to verification that it is genuine to [redacted]’s damaged unit. Evidence that cannot be verified will not be considered. Accepting evidence for review does not guarantee a change in our coverage position.
If no further information is submitted for consideration, Grange Insurance will remain with our previously stated position and will consider the matter closed. Please contact me at ###-###-#### with any questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Grange Mutual Casualty Company [redacted]
[redacted]8
PH: ###-###-####
Email: [redacted]
In response to your correspondence dated March 6,2015, I have reviewed the above captionedclaim and respond accordingly.This accident occurred on February 1, 2015 when our insured, [redacted], drove his 2013Hyundai Elantra over a pile of snow recently plowed from a side street. This resulted...
in damageto the front bumper and fog lights. It was reported to [redacted] Insurance Company on February2nd by [redacted]. Claim Representative [redacted] made contact with [redacted]the same day and made arrangements for the vehicle to be inspected. The inspection wascompleted on February 3rd and a payment of $761.08, reflecting a $500 collision deductible, wasissued on February 4th.[redacted] spoke with [redacted] on the February 4th to advise of the payment and obtain thename of the body shop [redacted] was using for repairs. [redacted] advised hisappointment was scheduled for February 10th and [redacted] would be completing repairson the vehicle. A rental reservation through [redacted] was then scheduled for two days whichwas adequate time for the repairs to be completed. [redacted] received a voicernail from [redacted]on February 16th and was advised there was additional damage to the undercarriage. [redacted] calledback immediately and left the body shop a voicemail asking them to fax a supplemental estimateto his attention. After repeated attempts to contact [redacted], the supplement was notreceived from the body shop until February 26th. The vehicle was promptly re-inspected thatsame day and a supplemental payment was issued directly to [redacted]. Including thesupplement, this was no more than a two day repair. [redacted] extended the rental to February 23rdfor a total of 13 days. It is our position that the delays in the repair were a direct result of thebody shop's inability to provide requested documentation in a timely manner. We havesuggested our insured to pursue the shop for any additional consideration.[redacted] Insurance Company believes we have fulfilled our rental reimbursement obligation incovering the rental costs for the period of time reasonably required to repair [redacted]covered auto. If you have further questions or I can provide any additional information regardingthis matter, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####, extension [redacted]Sincerely,[redacted]
Grange Insurance has promptly responded to every claim presented by [redacted] in writing as requested. Grange Insurance provided the claimant with a very detailed market
search supporting a value of $5733.28 (plus taxes and fees). This value included a deduction for unrelated prior...
damage to the vehicle. The fair market value was determined based on a thorough regional search that included 23 comparable vehicles that are currently for sale or that have recently sold. The report included specific details about the vehicles, including the year, make, model, VIN, mileage, address, and seller phone number. This market valuation also included some of the comparable vehicles provided by the claimant that had contact information and could be verified.
Grange has requested information regarding the passenger’s injuries sustained in the accident and corresponding medical treatment, but have received no information from her.
Total loss paperwork was sent to [redacted] as soon as possible to help expedite the settlement of his claim.
Based on [redacted] law, the proper elements of damage to personal property include necessary and reasonable expenses incurred due to the damage of the personal property. [redacted] law does not consider the alleged time and energy [redacted] spent researching vehicles, doing legal research and having legal consultations as reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the property damage to his vehicle.
Grange has fairly evaluated the market value of [redacted] vehicle and provided a rental vehicle for 16 days.
When I spoke with my attorney, he pointed out that never will an insurance company insure a vehicle that is not being paid for. I was only paying for the s10. You claim it is your right to receive debt, but you have no proof showing that the Dodge Ram would have been covered during that 6 month term until after you back dated it. I have the email showing I e-signed the document to drop the s10 and that it was dropped effective 3/06/14. I have the policy sent to me saying the Dodge Ram was added and effective 3/7/14 ( which led me the believe that everything including my monthly payments I paid every month on or before its due date was correct and accurate). I do understand that our policy for that term ended on 3/20/14 and a new term was in effect from 3/20-9/20, but with the information I received at when adding the Dodge Ram on 3/07 I assumed everything was still correct and accurate. I have the policy premiums your company sent me ( the month of Sept) that only covers the s10 prior to your company "back dating" the Ram. I also have the email from the agent after he figured out what the issue was
stating he did not check the proper box and that your company claimed
we had coverage (even though we weren't paying for it). It is easy for you to say NOW that the Ram would have been covered had an incident occurred, but had an incident actually occurred during that 6 month term, before you back dated there is not one document showing you really would have covered, only your word which I do not feel is trustworthy after the run around I got with your company trying to get answers about this situation. I paid a monthly premium which I thought I was being charged appropriated for but now I am being charged for something that there is not proof I would have been about to use had I needed it at that time, which is very unfair.
I am still requesting for your company to dismiss the bill or request the money from the broker which is responsible for the mistake.
I am attaching the email from the agent as well as the documentation I have to believe the s10 was dropped along with the premium summary showings the Dodge was added in March and then the premium summary in Sept showing the s10 still being covered.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
This letter is in follow up the most recent communication from [redacted]i regarding the claim. Upon receipt of [redacted]i’s follow up the timeline provided on our original response was reviewed for accuracy. Our records have verified the investigation timeline that was provided in our original response. Please see our timeline below.
[redacted] called in the above mentioned claim by phone on Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1:28 PM. It is important to note here that all contact information was provided by [redacted]i directly. The claim was assigned to adjuster [redacted]. [redacted] placed a call to [redacted] at the only phone number he provided; the log time of the call was 2:53 PM on the same date. There was no response and a message was left.
Contact was established with [redacted] on Monday, September 15, 2014. During this conversation he indicated that the unit was replaced over the weekend. [redacted] obtained the contact information for [redacted] at [redacted] and called him on this same date. A message was left for [redacted] and not immediately returned.
[redacted] established contact with [redacted] from [redacted] on Tuesday September 16, 2014. [redacted] asked [redacted] if the unit was available for inspection. [redacted] indicated that the unit had been disposed of and was not available for inspection. [redacted] asked if there was anything available for inspection and it was repeated that the unit had already been disposed of.
Based on our lack of ability to inspect the unit to confirm lightning damage, the claim was sent to management for denial review on Wednesday September 17, 2014. After approval by management, the claim was denied and the customer was called. A letter stating our position was mailed to [redacted] on this same date.
With respect to [redacted]’s questions at the end of the letter, we are required to consider any new information that may change our position. As stated in our previous response, [redacted]’s conversation with the HVAC representative indicated that there was nothing to inspect as the unit had been disposed of. We would consider photos, parts, written diagnostic records dated on or before the replacement or any other type of evidence [redacted] or his vendor can provide. All submitted evidence is subject to verification that it is genuine to [redacted]’s damaged unit. Evidence that cannot be verified will not be considered. Accepting evidence for review does not guarantee a change in our coverage position.
If no further information is submitted for consideration, Grange Insurance will remain with our previously stated position and will consider the matter closed. Please contact me at ###-###-#### with any questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Grange Mutual Casualty Company[redacted]
[redacted]
PH: ###-###-####
Email: [redacted]
Our apologies. There appears to have been a problem as we uploaded our response on November 6th.
[redacted] has been provided multiple copies of the market valuation report. I have attached a copy for the Revdex.com to review. The report includes very detailed information about each of the 23 comparables used to determine the value. [redacted] emailed a list of approximately fifty vehicles that he manually typed up. The list he created was void of any seller information and had very limited details about the vehicles. We made [redacted] aware of the missing information and explained why the list he typed up could not be considered. [redacted] then produced four comparable vehicles that included the necessary contact information. We included those in our evaluation, but they did not change the value of the vehicle.
[redacted] also advised us of a website he used to obtain a value. We reviewed the site and it actually returned a value in line with what was already offered.
I have attached a copy of the paid receipt showing we paid for 16 days of rental. In an effort to resolve [redacted]’ claim, we also waived the deduction for the unrelated prior damage.
On February 23, 2015, [redacted] phoned me and we discussed the situation and came to an agreement. I have since signed and mailed in the form he asked for and he in turn has released me in writing of the $49.56 premium due.Thank you for your help in resolving this case. I couldn't have done it alone.Yours truly,[redacted]