Nationwide

[redacted]       [redacted]   [redacted]
 
[redacted] 
________________________________________________________________________ I will attempt to explain this situation to you step by step using documents.   In July, 2013, my family bought a 2013 Toyota Camry from Oxmoor Toyota in [redacted].  We had insurance from Nationwide and for this purchase, we added our son,
[redacted], age 27, to the title and policy of this car.  We paid 6 months of insurance at the time of purchase.   October 25, 2013, we received a letter from Nationwide saying our insurance would be revoked on January 15, 2014 because [redacted]’s license is coming back unverifiable. We didn’t pay enough attention to this letter. In mid-December, Nationwide sent the same letter dated Oct. 25 again.  This time, I immediately went to see my Nationwide agent, [redacted].  He looked at the letter, noted [redacted]’s [redacted] Driver’s License number was unverifiable, and then he asked for [redacted]’s driver license number again and said everything has been taken care of.  I asked if I should pay for the insurance at that time and [redacted] said, “No, everything is in order.  Just wait for the new invoice.”  Since [redacted] said that everything was fine, we thought our policy will be extended as usual. No invoice arrived and we actually forgot about the expiration date.  So, our car was no longer insured as of January 15, 2014.   On February 6, 2014, while the car was warming up, I had the remote in my pocket and went into the house to change shoes.  When I returned, the car was gone.  We immediately called Nationwide and they informed me that the insurance had been revoked.  Then I called the police who came and filed a stolen car report.   On February 7, 2014, we saw [redacted], our Nationwide agent.  We explained the situation and he seemed surprised that we had not received an invoice for the insurance.  He called the 1-800 Nationwide phone number and told them that there was no invoice in their computer. While we were in the office, he raised his voice to someone from Nationwide over phone.  “Why didn’t you send another letter with the cancellation date?  I don’t see a warning letter was sent.  Why did you cancel the policy with no warning?”    He mentioned that there was still a problem with [redacted]’s driver’s license coming back unverifiable.  I gave [redacted]’s [redacted] Driver’s License number for the third time.  I was very surprised because in mid-December, [redacted] asked for [redacted]’s driver license number already and we gave it to him. Then he told me that there was no longer a problem and that I was to wait for an invoice.   We left the Insurance Office.  He called us back later and asked us few questions to renew the policy. He asked if there was any accidents or tickets since the expiration date of the policy and we said no because we didn’t get any tickets nor accidents. His boss agreed to renew our policy from January 15 to March 2, 2014.  We paid $198.07 and he issued us a Temporary Proof of Insurance. Immediately after this transaction, we informed him of the stolen car.  He had to talk to his boss and told us he would call us back.   On Feb. 10, my daughter called [redacted] and I went to his office.  [redacted] told me that the policy was completely cancelled and that it was our responsibility to read the warning letter in Oct. 2013.   He then informed us that this warning letter had been sent and that I had to check for a problem at the Post Office. Why was our policy cancelled in the first place since we gave the information that they’ve been asking for? My problem is that Nationwide is claiming that they cancelled our policy because they didn’t have [redacted]’s driver license number, even though we have provided them with that number a couple times personally, before our insurance was expired.  On Feb. 18, 2014, we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com.  We think there were some errors made in treating our case.  Could you please look into this matter again please? Thank you for your cooperation.
[redacted]

This is the worst agent I have ever had the misfortune to deal with. When I renewed the lease on my apartment, I had called to ask that they (Ryan H[redacted]) fax over proof of insurance. They said that they would take care of it. Fast forward three months, I get a note from the leasing office saying I owe a fine of nearly $100 for being out of compliance with the insurance policy. I come to find out that Nationwide never faxed over the documentation for my renters policy. I call the Ryan H[redacted] office and they faxed it right then (I'll admit to being forceful) with a note on the bottom saying that they accepted responsibility for not faxing it when I asked. I asked Nationwide to pay for or reimburse me for the fine since it was their mistake in the first place. They refused, even while admitting fault. So basically, even if they screw up, you are responsible for paying for their mistakes. I spoke to the corporate office and received the same response.

[redacted] 
The complaint is not resolved. The company has not responded to my letters. They have attempted to communicate directly with my minor daughter. And they have refused to honor an agreement that Director of Claims [redacted] made with me on April 25th.

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

Insurance does not work with us.  We like you to understand, all the painting was not pay, all the rugs and linoleum were not pay, the total amount of this insurance was very strange, the girl Emily also call every one that gives us estimates. if the (illegible word) were in one or two walls, is not need to paint the room, the rugs were "vandalise" with paint with grease also torn a part was not need to change it, this was the way she told us -- Now the bats, they will send some one to check, with a new adjuster, meanwile times goes by and no rent for us, we are disable and old, with pains but we believed this insurance how us 5 months of rent, are the one that blocked everything and we are not able to go on  with our life and rent. We feel is a elderly abuse and it is the insurance is to slow. Thay did not say to get 2 prices, they call the co - we did not have time to get and paid of the jobs to due. Due the job: you must get paid. So you can paid the work. As I say the insurance co. the co - must response. With the consumer and work, with the consumer is a long time consumer. you shud trust to work with. I have a good agent. [redacted], owner of [redacted] Insurance Agency, [redacted] Boss [redacted] is not so good. 
Sincerely yours [redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to our customer's inquiry.
This claim involves reported theft of property from our insured residence. There were a total of two claims reported, both with...

a date of loss of 07-15-2013.
The initial claim was reported under Nationwide Mutual Fire policy number ####### on 08-12-2013, and in the recorded statement to the claims department, our member advised that the theft occurred at [redacted]. She gave specific details concerning where the items in question were located and later noticed them missing.
The Nationwide Mutual claims department advised our member on 08-14-2013 that under her dwelling fire policy covering the loss location, theft was not a covered peril under her policy of insurance and the claim was denied. After that discussion, our member reported another claim under Nationwide Mutual policy number ##########.
On the second claim reported, our member advised in her recorded statement that the theft actually occurred at [redacted] in [redacted] Due to the inconsistency in the two recorded statements, a decision was made to request her presence at an examination under oath to add clarity to the loss details.
The EUO was conducted by outside counsel. In a review of the information gathered during the EUO, it was determined that there were numerous documented areas where there was evidence of material misrepresentation and/or false statements. These inconsistencies included when she noticed the items missing, where she last recalled seeing the items, where the loss was alleged to have occurred, her actions after the loss and other relevant facts surrounding the loss.
Due to the aforementioned inconsistencies, Nationwide Mutual concluded that our member made material misrepresentations and false statements in the presentation of the claim. Based on the foregoing, Nationwide Mutual believes a decision to respectfully deny her claim is warranted in this matter.
If you have any further questions, please contact our customer relations coordinator at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]

I have reviewed the above reference complaint and would like to respond.
Ms. [redacted] completed an application for insurance coverage with Nationwide Non-Standard at 6:54AM on April 18, 2016 under policy #[redacted]. Ms. [redacted] then filed a claim for a hit and runaccident that she...

advised occurred around 10:00 AM on that same day. When Ms. [redacted] filed theclaim, the application for policy #[redacted] had not been approved or processed by our Underwritingdepartment. As the new policy was not in our system, the Customer Service representative filed theclaim under a policy Ms. [redacted] had with Nationwide in 2015, policy #[redacted].Claims adjuster [redacted] spoke with Ms. [redacted] less than two hours after the claim was filedand advised Ms. [redacted] that policy #[redacted] had cancelled effective May 5, 2015. At this time, Ms.[redacted] did not make any mention of a policy application for policy #[redacted] with Nationwide andstated to Ms. [redacted] that she had Allstate insurance. Ms. [redacted] advised for Ms. [redacted] to file theclaim with her Allstate policy since she was advised that policy was active at the time of loss.
On April 19, 2016, the associate received an alert that there was a new policy, policy #[redacted]. Ms.[redacted] then called Ms. [redacted] to advise of the active policy and took a recorded statement inregards to the facts of loss. I reviewed the recorded statement and Ms. [redacted] asked all of theappropriate questions necessary to complete an investigation.
On April 25, 2016, the payment to instate policy #[redacted] was returned for non-sufficient funds andpolicy #[redacted] was cancelled back to inception. I advised Ms. [redacted] that policy #[redacted] wascancelled back to inception and there was no coverage for this loss. Ms. [redacted] advised that whenshe was told policy #[redacted] was cancelled during her initial conversation with Ms. [redacted], shecalled her bank to stop the payment that she had made to instate policy #[redacted]. I explained toMs. [redacted] that she was not advised to stop the payment and in doing so, policy #[redacted]cancelled back to inception.
In conclusion, our investigation revealed that there was no coverage for this date of loss under policy#[redacted] or policy #[redacted] and the claim was denied due to lack of coverage.
If you require further assistance, please contact our [redacted], Lance R[redacted],at ###-###-#### or by email at [redacted].
Sincerely,Dudley S[redacted]

For starters a $1,104.00 increase in policy from last to this year is absurd. Nothing has changed the fire department not moved, the fire hydrants have not moved and the house is still where it was built. 
What has changed are the classifications. Correct me if I'm wrong the only way you can increase premiums on policy holders such as myself that have basically a clean record, with no claims in 16 years, is to request classification changes. These classification changes then allow you to increase premiums.   
At this time, I am requesting all filing for classification changes, documentation that effected my policy  and whom was this filed with.  Also I am requesting the response and or final documentation on the approval.  
Which includes but not limited to rate filing as well as classification changes. 
Also, When my local agent for Nationwide retired I received a card from an agency in [redacted] SC stating they were handling my policy. When I first was made aware of the premium increase I call the Nationwide  number listed on the policy and was referred to the agent in [redacted]. I called the agency and asked to speak to [redacted] (the Agent) back on 5-24-16  he has yet to call me or made any to contact me in regards to this issue. I did talk to a female named [redacted] whom referred me to Nationwide for answers.  Therefore the agent in my opinion is absolutely useless and has no help or made any attempt to help understand this increase. I 'm requesting that any commission paid to this agent be return and credited to my policy Premium because he has done nothing for me and yet my money goes to him.  
I feel the $1,100.00 increase is not warranted and outrageous and should be refunded for nothing I have done has caused this (absolutely no claims).  
It is the greed of the insurance company to change the classifications in order to increase premiums.  
Regards,
[redacted]

Thank you for contacting us on this matter and providing us with an opportunity to respond. We have researched the inquiry and we have no record of Ms. [redacted] payment.
Notwithstanding her complaint, we are further investigating this matter to ensure that we have addressed all of Ms. [redacted]...

concerns.If you need further assistance, please contact Sharon W[redacted] at [redacted] or via phone at ###-###-####.
Regards,Laura A. H[redacted]

[redacted] 
Thank you for your recent...

inquiry regarding a complaint you received from [redacted]. As Material Damage Claims Director, I have reviewed this claim file and would like to address [redacted]’s concerns. If I do not provide the information you need for this matter, please do not hesitate to let me know.
[redacted] reported a vehicle theft claim to Nationwide Affinity Insurance on May 19, 2014. The claims associate made contact with [redacted] on May 23, 2014 and a recorded statement was taken. The claim was assigned to our Special Investigator for further investigation of inconsistencies within the statement. The vehicle was recovered, found wrecked. A vehicle inspection was then conducted.
On June 6, 2014, it was determined to hire a column analysis expert to determine if the ignition was compromised, since [redacted] had the one and only key to the vehicle in his possession.
On June 16, 2014, Nationwide Affinity Insurance Co of America received the ignition analysis report. The findings were that the ignition was not defeated and a key was used to move the vehicle from the loss location to its final recovery place.
On June 25, 2014, Nationwide Affinity Insurance Co of America received the [redacted] State Highway Patrol report stating no theft of vehicle report was taken. The claims associate contacted [redacted] and offered to pay the claim under Collision, since no theft report was on file. [redacted] refused, stating the vehicle was stolen.
On June 26, 2014, a file conference was conducted with the claims associate, the special investigator and our Regional General Counsel. It was determined to move forward with an Examination under Oath.
The Examination under Oath was conducted on July 16, 2014. At this time, [redacted] was again advised of his collision coverage and the claim could be transferred to collision. [redacted] refused.
On August 19, 2014, another file conference was conducted and it was determined to deny the claim based on the facts do not support a vehicle theft loss.
The claims associate contacted [redacted] on August 25, 2014, after several attempts. The Claims associate advised [redacted] a decision to deny his claim, based on facts don’t support a theft loss, were discussed. The claims associate advised [redacted] that a denial letter would be mailed regular and certified mail.
Based on my review, this claim has been properly handled. We strive to meet our customer’s needs, but understand that sometimes we are unable to do so. If you should have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,

[redacted]
Nationwide Affinity Insurance Co of America
###-###-####
[redacted]

This letter is in reply to the rejection of our original response by the complainant. The complainant rejected our response due to the lack of documentation regarding the short rate clause and the lack of disclosure of the rate.
Nationwide has complied with all regulatory statues regarding the disclosure of the short rate procedure for automobile policies. The policy jacket, issued at the time of the inception of the policy specifically indicates as follows:
“If the named insured or a premium finance company cancels this policy, the premium owed or premium refund due will be calculated according to the short rate provisions contained in our manuals. If we cancel this policy, any premium owed or premium refund will be calculated on a pro-rata basis.”
All short rate provisions are filed with the state department of insurance as required by law. The balance due of $161.51 reflects premium owed up until the cancellation date plus one $25.00 Returned Item fee and one $3.00 installment fee. The premium was correctly calculated and cannot be waived.
Please feel free to contact me if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,Colleen F[redacted]

Thank
you for notifying us of your complaint. We strive to provide our customers with
the best possible service, and when they feel that it fails to meet their
expectations, it’s important for us to know.
We’re
sorry that you received service that prompted you to contact us with a
complaint,...

and we regret any inconvenience or frustration that this experience
has caused you. To ensure that our staff conducts itself in a manner that
reflects the high regard that we have for our customers, we always review them
and I’ve reviewed this complaint with several others that were involved with
your service work at [redacted] Dr.
I
reviewed this with our service dispatcher and our Service Manager when I read
this on Monday morning. After we had several lengthy conversations over your failed
service request it came down to a few different things that happened. I can
point my finger at several situation that caused this situation but it all
comes down to we dropped the call for your Friday afternoon service request. I
sincerely apologize to you for this situation. On behalf of our service
dispatcher they had every well intention to meet that promise on Friday and had
a technician dispatched to your home as promised. The problems occurred after
the call was given out and we are looking into that problem.
On
Saturday the dispatcher talked with you and again we were ready to send a
technician out that day but there was a problem with the proper ladder to gain
access to your roof. On Monday 5/11/15, as our conversation continued with you,
we are scheduled again to complete this service.
The
report back from our service technician on what he found was a problem at the
unit on your roof. The problem was in no way related to our work from three
years ago. It appears another contractor must have been involved and left this
issue.
Our
customer’s patronage is important to us, and we sincerely apologize for not
meeting your expectation of quality service.
Thank
you again for bringing these matters to my attention.

[redacted] 
[redacted]
 
[redacted]...

[redacted] 
Nationwide strives to provide great customer service to all of our customers.  I have investigated the issues in your inquiry dated March 7, 2014 and the following response was received from the agent [redacted] in regards to [redacted]’s complaint. 
[redacted] and/or [redacted] spoke with NSS (Nationwide Sales Solutions) several days prior to contacting my office.  In the log notes listed below, [redacted] was very clear about his coverage and what he wanted.  The information contained in the notes from NSS (below) is in-line with the conversation I had with [redacted].  He called my office and was upset because he did not know who he had spoken to and he wanted to begin his policy.  He even stated, my Sales Manager had spoken with him and was going to call back with the rate, but never did.  Here at Nationwide, Sales Managers do not write quotes.  [redacted] was so concerned with getting the rate close to his prior quote of $120 that he did not want to make any special changes to the quote.  At that time, we called PLSC (Personal Lines Service Center) to try to locate the quote or find out who the quoting agent was but was unsuccessful.  
I explained to [redacted], as I do with all of my clients, I am an ex-adjuster and I do not want a client upset with me because I did not explain coverage.  I have been an adjuster on the other side and have dealt with an upset client who thought they had a specific coverage and did not.  So I pride myself on explaining things and making sure my clients know what they have.  
[redacted] stated exactly what coverages he wanted.  He was very clear with the coverage and understood how they worked.  He knew he wanted 25/50/25, $500 deductible, etc.   In my agency, we do not quote state minimum limits unless the client wants it.  Of course, we have policies with those limits but we have more polices in our book with 100/300/100 and 500/500/100, not state minimum limits.  Also, as far as the deductibles, I suggested changing them or choosing the vanishing deductible package but he did not want it. 
Customer Contact Log: 
1/14/14 - [redacted] called into get a quote. The quote was for [redacted] and [redacted]. He requested coverage on 1 vehicle, a 2013 Chevy Camaro. He was requested a $500 ded and 25/50/25 liability limits. He said he wanted to keep it as low as possible, but wanted RSA (Roadside Assistance) as well. The agent provided a rate of $120.03. The member requested to provide his banking information to have the policy started on 1/23/14. They agent advised that he could not take that information until they were going to process the payment. They set a follow up for 1/22/13 to take payment and set up the policy.
1/20/14 - [redacted] called back again and spoke with another CSR. He again advised that he needed his policy information and that he gave his payment information to be drafted on 1/22/13. The CSR tried to pull up any information but could not find anything. He said he spoke with someone else about this as well and gave the phone number ###-###-####. The CSR was unable to find anyone connected to that number but said that it may have been a local agent. [redacted] said again that the original agent told him his policy was started, but he could take his payment information (FYI - the agent on 1/14/14 never stated he started the policy). The CSR advised that policies are not created or started until the down payment was taken. The CSR tried to contact sale, but they were closed. The conversation ended shortly after. 
1/21/14 - [redacted] called back and spoke with a CSR to get his policy information. Once again, the CSR was not able to find any information on the policy (because a policy was never written). The CSR transferred [redacted] to Sales to review the "policy." The agent advised that the policy was not started. It was just a quote until the down payment was made.  The member requested the policy number. The agent advised that there was no policy number. She also saw the quote noted with an unacceptable loss history and said she would reach out to the original agent to see what that was about. She advised the agent would call her right back. 
We had a lengthy conversation over the phone regarding glass coverage 
Neither client addressed any concerns with glass during our conversation.  When issuing a policy, I always try to explain coverage and did so with [redacted].  He knew exactly what he wanted.  He did not want to lower deducible (I explained them); he did not want accident /minor violation forgiveness or medical pay (I explained both of those).  Again, [redacted] wanted to get as close to the $120 as he was quoted.  
One or two days before the storm [redacted] called 
We have just recently opened our new location.  I want people to know we are available for them in their time of need.  I had [redacted] call new clients and let them know we will be there if they need us.  During the conversation with [redacted] mentioned she had trees over her parked car (may not be the exact words) and asked if she had coverage for her windshield.  [redacted] told her, there is coverage but she has a deductible.  This was the first mention of the windshield.  
I received a call from [redacted] 
After the storm, I received a call from [redacted], she wanted to know about glass deductibles.  I explained to her the glass is covered under the comprehensive coverage in the policy.   She kept saying that we offer a special glass deducible but I was unaware of this offer.  She then stated she was from Ohio and we offer separate glass deductible.  I told her I would find out but I was unaware of any special deductible.  She did not like the fact that her deductible for the glass was $500 because the replacement cost of the window was a little shy of the deductible amount.  
Follow up 
I have spoken with both clients twice since the storms.  I have suggested on more than one occasion they change their deductible but as of 3-10-14 they still have not.   I told [redacted] in our last conversation, if something was to happen to the back window we would be in the same situation.  She still did not want the change.  
I have tried to explain the coverage and suggest changes on the policy but it has been difficult.  From the very beginning with NSS the quotes reflected a $500 deductible.  I spoke with [redacted] more than a week later for the first time and was told the same thing.  
Complaint regarding rude associate 
During my conversation with [redacted] on February 26, 2014, she advised me of her concerns regarding her conversations with two of my associates. I apologized to [redacted] and explained that they are required to obtain permission to speak to anyone who is not a named insured and that this wasn’t meant to upset her.  I advised I would address the situation appropriately and review it with my associates.  This has been done and the matter has been closed. 
Complaint regarding settlement of claim 
This claim was reported to Nationwide on 02/13/14 as a windshield glass damage claim. The glass damage was inspected and it was determined that the windshield could not be repaired and needed to be replaced. This type of damage falls under our policyholder’s comprehensive coverage. The policyholder elected a comprehensive deductible of five hundred dollars when the policy was incepted. Based on our policy if the windshield cannot be repaired and needs to be replaced, the full comprehensive deductible is owed. The cost to replace the windshield falls below our policyholder’s deductible so no payments were issued for this loss. 
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us. 
Respectfully, [redacted] 
[redacted]
###-###-####
[redacted]
###-###-####
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]
 
We are writing in response to your follow-up inquiry into [redacted]’s claim.  We understand that [redacted] has a roofing company who has informed her that she has hail damage to her roof.  As we stated in our last response we had an independent structural engineering firm inspect [redacted]’s roof on September 30, 2014.  The structural engineer did not find any hail damage to [redacted]’s roof.  This information has been provided to [redacted]. 
If [redacted] would like to have a structural engineer inspect her roof and provide that information to us we could reconsider our position. 
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the claim. 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted] Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company
Phone: ###-###-####
[redacted]

[redacted] 
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted] 
 
[redacted]       [redacted]          [redacted]
           ...

[redacted]                 [redacted]
            [redacted]       
This letter is in response to the complaint filed with your agency by [redacted] regarding his Tenant policy.  Our records indicate the policy was written on June 17, 2014, for an effective date of July 1, 2014.  Nationwide collected the annual premium amount of $205.00 on June 17, 2014.  
On June 30, 2014 the policy cancelled for an effective date of July 1, 2014.  On July 1, 2014, Nationwide calculated a refund amount of $205.00 for the policyholder.  Nationwide held the premium for 10 days to validate the original payment.  On July 11, 2014, Nationwide returned the payment of $205.00 to the bankcard used for the original transaction. 
Nationwide is advised that it may take five business days for the bankcard account to reflect the credit. 
 If you should have any other requests or questions regarding this matter, please contact Colleen Flack at ###-###-####, ext. ########.
Sincerely,  [redacted] – Customer Resolution and ResponseNationwide Insurance Companies

[redacted] 
[redacted]
___________________________________________________
April 9th 2014
This letter is in response to the correspondence from Nationwide Insurance submitted
on April 7th 2014 regarding Policy #####
Introduction
I concur with the [redacted]'s timeline outlining meeting dates. Further, I have no
complaints concerning their overall timeliness.
I would, however, like to expand upon this timeline with additional information in the
hopes of explaining my original claims: (1 ) unprofessionalism, (2) potentially unethical
business practices, and (3) insufficient renumeration.
Unprofessionalism
The following outlines phone and email correspondence, meetings (noted in [redacted]s account),
 and other interactions that demonstrated a pattern of
unprofessionalism marked by failures to act in a timely fashion; failures to adequately
address repeatedly communicated concerns; and most importantly failures to disclose
pertinent information.
Failure to Act in a Timely Fashion
At the time of the fire, I was not in [redacted]. I first talked with [redacted] the morning after
the fire 12/23/2014 over the phone. She advised that we needed to immediately secure
and winterize the home. I explained that my management company had called ([redacted]
) and to my knowledge had already done so. Given that I was not in [redacted], she
further explained that she would email me papers to sign to begin the claim process.
During this conversation she assured me that the "loss of income" rider would take
effect immediately and that I would be able to pay pending mortgage payments.
Along with completed paperwork I emailed my banking information on 12/27/2013. I
further informed [redacted] by phone that my next mortgage payment was due on
January 1st and urged her to complete the transaction given the pending due date. I did
not receive any response from [redacted] up through the first week in January so I
attempted to reach her by phone again. She initially stated that I hadn't provided her the
needed information, but when she again looked on her computer at my urging she
found it. [redacted] said that she had been very busy and committed to sending off
the payment immediately. I expressed to her that I needed the payment by the 15th or I
was going to have to make some other arrangements. After seeing again that no
payment was made, I called [redacted] again on the 13th. After reaching her by
phone, she completed the transaction on her computer while talking to me. While I did
receive the payment by the 15th this simple but important transaction required multiple
emails, phone calls, and reminders - all of which were handled with poor customer
service.
Failures to Address Concerns
During our 12/27/2013 phone conversation, [redacted] stated that, "the house wasn't
bad," that "three rooms weren't damaged at all," and that the house had been "secured
and protected." When I saw my home for the first time I was nauseated. I unlocked the
front door expecting to see the house boarded up and covered; instead, I saw the blue
winter sky and snow covered steps going up to nothing.
I called [redacted] and expressed her how shocked I was and wanted to make an
appointment to meet with her in person. [redacted] suggested that we meet at a
public restaurant to which I responded with a request to meet at an office, explaining
that I had gathered photos and other documents that would be helpful to creating more
accurate damage estimates. [redacted] said she did not have an office so and asked
me to suggest a restaurant near me. Unhappy, but wanting to be cooperative I
suggested a local [redacted] (because I would need WIFI). While I arrived with a laptop, a
large file box, and several notebooks obviously prepared to discuss the damages, [redacted]
immediately presented me with an estimate that she had completed. While
she was reviewing the estimate, I assertively expressed my concern that I felt that her
estimate was uninformed and made without consideration of information that would
impact the value of the estimate. She attempted to convince me that she had been able
to make accurate estimates based on two trips to the house. I again asserted that it was
my expectation that the meeting (which I had requested) was to be informational in
nature, and an opportunity for me to provide additional information about the home -
certainly not a meeting to settle on the claim.
Coming across to me as annoyed by my request, she agreed to review copies of photos
of the pre-damage home, explaining that she would have to attach the photos to the
otherwise already-approved estimate and then would have to amend it as necessary.
Given that she had not brought a laptop with her, and the fact that we were at a
restaurant, we agreed that I would email her the photos. (This, too, was uncomfortable
as it required me to move around a public restaurant searching for a strong enough
signal. I had assumed that discussions of my destroyed home would have been handled
with more sensitivity and professionalism).
In sum, in my interactions with [redacted] repeatedly came across as insensitive,
unresponsive, and unreliable. She appeared wholly focused on processing my claim
quickly and disinterested in learning more about information that I considered to be
important and potentially impactful to the claims process.
Failures to Disclose Pertinent Information
Given the above interactions with [redacted] early in the claims process I spoke with
my insurance agent ([redacted]). With the utmost professionalism he provided an
overview of the claims process explaining that I would first meet with a claims agent to
and discuss procedures and the property, that an estimate would then be completed,
and that I would then meet with a claims agent to discuss any concerns in hopes of
coming to an agreement. He further explained that if we were not able to come to an
agreement, the process would go to arbitration. I asked if I could request a complete
copy of the estimate. He stated that it was my right to do so and showed me sections in
the policy stating such. [redacted] or [redacted] explained neither the claims
procedures or my rights as a claimant.
With this information, early in the process I requested that [redacted] to provide me
with a complete copy of the estimate.. While she questioned as to whether I really
wanted the complete estimate consisting of 60-70 pages, with further prompting she did
provide it at our first in-person meeting.
Of course, the estimate did not include information that I had repeatedly tried to provide
to [redacted]. After consulting with my agent ([redacted]) who validated my ongoing
concerns, I contacted [redacted] agreed that we should meet and to
do so at the [redacted] office space on 2/11/14.
During this meeting [redacted] and a woman from his Personal Property Policy staff
asked if I was able construct a list of damaged property. [redacted] noted that she
had already created a list drawing from the documents that had been created by the
property management company. I explained that this list she drew from was not
complete and did not include items in the garage or items in the basement. I then
provided my list which she reviewed and recorded.
I then requested we go through the estimate page by page and [redacted] agreed.
[redacted] revised the estimate on her laptop as we discussed and came to
agreement on the value of many items included in the estimate.
While I was feeling more comfortable with the estimate, I expressed to [redacted]
that I still had concern about 4 specific components of the estimate that appeared to be
vastly underestimated to include: (1) replacement costs of high quality energy efficient
windows (2) electrical estimates, (3) demolition costs, and (4) square footage
estimates of the unsalvageable portion of the home.
To this end, I explained to [redacted] that I was in the process of gathering and
organizing receipts related to these items, and was arranging for additional estimates
from other contractors. He explained that while we could examine those receipts and
estimates at a later date, he wanted to write me a check to pay off the remaining
mortgage. I was surprised with his offer and clearly and emphatically stated that I was
not in agreement with the estimate (I repeated that statement several times). [redacted]
 stated that he was not requesting me to formally agree to any arrangement,
was not asking me to sign anything, and that the current estimate was a "bottom line"
explaining that the current estimate is the lowest possible value and that the estimate
(with additional information) can only be raised.
Feeling uncomfortable, I denied his request to take his check for the mortgage payment.
I requested a new copy of the amended estimate and left the meeting. In that meeting I
signed nothing and I agreed to nothing.
[redacted] said OK you need time to review the estimate, but you need to call me by
Friday the 15th so the necessary time needed to process the mortgage payment be
within the bank's time period for the mortgage payoff amount stated.
[redacted] emailed the amended estimate 2/13/2014 and I printed it out so I could
review it and compare with the original. At the end of the meeting [redacted] assured
me that at our next meeting they would look at all of the additional information and
encouraged me to get additional estimates. [redacted] even provided a list of
restoration companies. (2 page of letter listing the recommendations is attached).
I called [redacted] on Feburary 14th and agreed to allow Nationwide to write a check
to me and the mortgage company in the amount equal to the remaining mortgage. I told
him I would keep in contact and I would arrange to meet with him to continue to discuss
the results of the additional estimates. He agreed with the approach and asked that I
inform him when I wanted to meet again.
I felt we had made progress when I left [redacted] on Feb 21. I subsequently began
organizing my receipts, documents, pictures etc. and started making arrangements for
another visit to [redacted] to meet with [redacted] and [redacted].
Soon after this meeting, however, I discovered I had received in my bank account 4
Claim Payments all on 2/18/14.
-While I was expecting the claim for the $4000 personal property loss and two
payments of loss of income for $1,117 and $519, I was unaware and did not authorize
the additional $49,95O(see attachment).
-[redacted] stated in his response on page 2, "On 2/13/2014 payment for the
actual cash value via two checks per [redacted]'s request." This is just incorrect;
NOT TRUE.
-I received one check in mine and the mortgage company's name for the amount of
the mortgage only which I received 2/20/2014 which I authorized.
-Money was put in my account that I did not authorize in writing or even realize was
going to happen. I did not realize that had happened until I got back to [redacted]. I then
moved it over to my escrow account since we were not done yet with the final estimate
and I didn't have any paper work.
Despite problems with payment, I believed we would resolve these issues and likely
come to agreement at our next meeting - again after I would be given the opportunity to
provide additional receipts, and estimates from Nationwide-recommended contractors.
Accordingly, I contacted [redacted] and scheduled a meeting for 3/31/2014 at the
[redacted] Nationwide office.
Insufficient Renumeration
In preparation for the 3/31/2014 meeting, I called three independent restoration
contractors. The following summarizes their findings, all of which are discrepant with
Nationwide's estimate (see attachments for more detailed information).
-[redacted] explained that their company would use the same
software that was used to conduct the original estimate and in all likelihood would
probably come up with an initial estimate similar to that which was previously
provided. However, he explained, that my additional receipts, photos, documents
and other information would then be used to provide the scope of the damage
and to make adjustments to the estimate. After completing his assessment he
concluded that he would recommend "gutting" the three remaining rooms. Given
this conclusion, and with additional information his estimated replacement costs
were higher than those estimated by Nationwide Insurance.
-[redacted] (recommended to me by a Nationwide Insurance Agent)
visited the house and concluded that there wasn't anything to build from or save.
He recommended total demolition and rebuild.
-After inspecting the remains of the home, the [redacted] agent asked,
" What are you saving? There is not enough to build from." Subsequently, their
estimate was based on rebuild costs.
-(Note also that within one week of the fire, the [redacted] Assessment
department changed the value of the building to $0.00.)
Potentially Unethical Business Practices
[redacted]
I first became uncomfortable in dealings with [redacted], a company
recommended by [redacted] and who had secured and covered my home in the
aftermath of the fire. [redacted], the [redacted] employee who was
reportedly involved in both securing my home and in estimating the costs of the
damage, repeatedly attempted to seek me out to discuss his restoration services. Not
only were his calls insensitive and unwelcome he appeared to be leveraging information
that he was privy to in his work with [redacted].
[redacted]
In preparation for the 3/31/2014 meeting I called [redacted] another company
recommended by [redacted] and who had reportedly helped in preparing the original
estimate ( see attachment including mention of [redacted] conducting
assessment). After requesting to speak to a [redacted] employee about the damage
estimate related to my home, I was told that [redacted] did not posses any records or
estimates related to my house. I asked them if [redacted] was one of their
employees. The [redacted] employee said yes, that he was an employee. I asked if could
return my call. [redacted] did return my call. I explained to him I was hoping to meet
with him at my home to discuss an estimate of damage assessment. He said that he
would not meet me at the house, but would get back to me. In a follow-up call he again
stated that he couldn't come out to meet me at my house, but that he did, in fact, agree
with the original estimate.
Given his unresponsiveness, it was interesting and awkward to walk into the meeting of
3/31/2014 and see [redacted], from [redacted] Services, in our meeting. [redacted]
stated that he was there to answer questions on the estimates. However, when I asked
[redacted] why he would not agree to come out to meet me at my house he did not
answer. He did say he had visited there since that time.
Nationwide Insurance
I came to the 3/31/2014 meeting ready to discuss my concerns and with receipts and
estimates. After providing receipts for my windows ($21,000 vs. $7,000 estimated
costs), electrical bids, demolition estimates, and rebuilding estimates, [redacted]
curtly asked what I expected him to do. I explained that I hoped that they would use this
information to adjust the estimate appropriately.
Without discourse, [redacted] said, "No, we are done. This is our estimate. We can
rebuild your house for this amount. "He went on to explain that during the rebuilding
process we may discover more damage, which will be paid for at that time. I responded
with a request to open the remaining walls to identify any potential additional damage,
to which he refused. Given his statements I again expressed that I would not sign
anything without at least considering the additional information I had provided. He
explained that I wouldn't be required to sign anything, stating, "We are done until you
decide to rebuild."
Almost in tears, I asked why he had encouraged me to get the numerous additional
estimates and fly back to [redacted] to meet if there was no expectation to revise the
estimate. I reminded him of his repeated reassurances that we had not settled on a final
estimate. He just reiterated his position that we were "done."
In addition to finding his behavior deceitful, I question whether it is professionally
unethical. He was aware of my discomfort, encouraged me to pursue additional
estimates, and suggested to meet again with him - all while assumedly knowing that he
would ultimately not adjust his estimate.
Conclusion
Note that I wholly understand that my insurance only covers Replacement Value for that
which is damaged. My concern is simple: I (and several other independent contractors)
feel that Nationwide lnsurance is failing to include all damages in their assessment and
is therefore underestimating the total replacement value. Taking these factors into
account I feel I should receive renumeration for additional damages of at least $10,000 -
$15,000.
Furthermore, through this process I felt that I was left uninformed, was misled, was
pressured, and was treated with lack of respect. I have faithfully been a Nationwide
Insurance customer for over 40 years. After suffering the misfortune of having my home
burn down and having to file a claim, it is unfathomable that I would have this
experience. One in which I was treated as though it was somehow unreasonable to
expect Nationwide to be truthful, to guide me through the claims process, and to be as
informed as possible in estimating damages to my home.
Thank you for your consideration.
[redacted]

I am writing in response to the supplemental complaint submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.com of Columbus, Ohio.[redacted] has indicated in his supplemental complaint that he feels a month of his insurance should be paid, his down time should be paid, and the insurance company should takeresponsibility for the used fifth wheel on his vehicle if a loss were to occur. 
As stated in the original letter dated December 30, 2014 there will be no consideration for payment of ** [redacted]s insurance premium as ** [redacted] maintained their policy.Their will be no consideration for payment of ** [redacted]s downtime. This coverage is not available and no premium was paid for such coverage. Nor will be their any consideration for adelay in repairs, locating of parts, or receipt of such parts.
National Casualty Company will not assume the responsibility of ** [redacted], or any other entity, for their use or operation of any fifth wheel. ** [redacted]s damaged fifth wheel, fromtheir loss, was indemnified as required by the policy with materials of like, kind, and quality for the actual cash value of the damaged property.
Should you have additional questions or inquiries, please please contact our Customer Relations Coordinator, Janice Kleinhans, toll-free at ###-###-####, ext. #####, direct at ###-###-####, or by email at [redacted]
Attached please find our company's follow up response to this complaint

Received fax of signed authorization

[redacted]
 
 
 
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
 
[redacted]  [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
 
[redacted]  
This letter is in response to the inquiry received from your office on December 10, 2014.
 
We are continuing in our efforts to attempt to find coverage for our customer’s loss to her HVAC system.  We have requested documentation from her on her home warranty policy, which she states she canceled as a result of being offered our Equipment Breakdown endorsement (####).  If we can verify that the home warranty policy would have covered her loss, we will extend coverage on a one time basis due to a misunderstanding regarding coverage under our endorsement.
 
In response to our request for information, [redacted] has provided a marketing brochure for the home warranty company.
 
We have contacted the home warranty company and have been advised that they cannot provide us with any specific information regarding the policy [redacted] had.  They will however provide the information to [redacted] directly.
 
Via [redacted]’s insurance agent, we have asked that she follow up with the home warranty company to obtain the needed information.  We have yet to receive any further documentation from [redacted].
 
If you require further assistance in this matter, please contact our Customer Relations Coordinator, [redacted], toll-free at ###-###-####, Ext #####
or by email at [redacted]
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
[redacted]
[redacted]
Western Claims Zone
Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Phone: ###-###-####                                  
Email Address: [redacted]

My car was a total loss after a driver on a temp permit barrelled into it (she thought her car was in reverse but it obviously wasn't). The girl who caused the accident is insured with [redacted]. NAI is in a HUGE rush to get my car into the scrap yard. They are NOT even offering me a fair price for it. What is their rush ... are they making money on this or something? Plus, I have a $500 deductable... why in the heck would they even recommend I settle with NAI v. going with [redacted]. Also, I informed this total loss specialist (Jerrica) that I had just put 4 new tires on this car and she told me to submit that receipt before they sent the payout value ... but she emailed the payout value to my husband and not to me ... what the heck? She sent me the email to turn over the title to them. I feel like she is trying to pull a fast one on me and take advantage of me. We thought that Nationwide was "on our side" but it seems like Nationwide is on their own side in this instance.