Nautilus Insurance Company

Review: Used my local [redacted] agent, [redacted], in [redacted] to add-on a Liability Policy for small Pedal Pull and Petting Zoo businesses. It was then subcontracted to Statewide Services of [redacted], then they ordered it through this Nautilus Company (I didn't know all this subbing went on....) Paid my full premium of $978.50 by check in May to Statewide. Inspector came in June to "view" businesses, he had wrong/no information and asked for incomes on all our businesses, not just the ones for this liability policy, took pictures and measurements as well. I sent a complaint letter then to Statewide on his poor conduct.

He was sent back again to now inspect and take pictures of the correct businesses and asked for more financial incomes. No forms, no signatures, left no information on his company, etc.

Then on 8/20/14 Statewide sends me an add-on cost to this policy of $610.79. A 60% increase, using wrong income numbers as well. I requested on 8/26/14 that the policy be reviewed for its extreme increase, a why, and to at least use correct gross incomes which I supplied via actual scans of my tax return and line breakouts QB files.

No new invoice ever sent, No action on bad inspector visits, no adjustments to this after-fact increase that may ultimately force us to close both of these small businesses.Desired Settlement: I want one of the 5 companies involved to cover the $610.79. I also want a formal review of the inspection practices and how these insurance companies can determine income based rates without any actual forms or signatures.

Business

Response:

Thank you for contacting Nautilus Insurance Company regarding the above policyholder's concern.

Please be advised Nautilus Insurance Company, an eligible surplus lines insurer in Wisconsin , distributes its product through contracted general agents . Risk Placement Services, Inc. is our contracted general agent for policy NN440362. Statewide Services, Inc. is the insured's agent and has no contractua l agreement with Nautilus .

Risk Placement Services provided an offer of coverage to Statewide Services based on the below:

Pedal Pull sales of $8,500 x 49.425 rate per 1,000 of sales

Petting Zoo sales of $1,500 x 46.627 rate per 1,000 of sales

Coverage was accepted and a policy was issued. On occasion, Nautilus advises our contracted genera l agent to obtain an inspection. In this case, Risk Placement Services requested an inspection be completed by Overland Solutions. Conducting an inspection is supported by item D. of the Common Policy Conditions, IL0017, which was included with the insured's copy of the policy (copy of form attached) . Risk Placement Services is looking into the policyholder's concerns with how the inspection was conducted.

The inspection report advised sales of $28,000 for these businesses. An endorsement was issued on August 19, 2014 to revise the sales amounts shown on the policy. The increased sales amounts resulted in an additional premium of $610.79.

On September 19, 2014, Risk Placement Services received an email from Statewide Services stating that the policyholder would like to update the sales amount for the Pedal Pull business to $25,950 and the sales amount for the Petting Zoo to $1,757.

An endorsement was issued on September 22, 2014 with the revised sales amounts, which resulted in a return premium of $8.24.

The net difference between the two endorsements of $602.55 due reflects the increase in exposure from the higher sales for these businesses. We are not able to revise the amount due.

Review: We have been insured with Nautilus Insurance Company for more than 2 years now.

Recently they did an audit on us and sent us a bill for extra premium.

We refused to pay the extra premium as our business has been wrongly classified on the policy. I have brought this issue up many times with the insurance agent but nothing was done about this.

The classification code they have used is 53733. This is a code for Furniture manufacturing or assembling - Wood. We do neither over here. We are a home furnishings supplier dealing in soft furnishing like pillows and table linens. A very small part of our business is furniture sales. There too we only resell boxed furniture. We do not assemble or manufacture anything here.

As a result of our refusal they canceled our policy.

I had written to their customer service department before the cancellation but got no response from them.Desired Settlement: Nautilus needs to reclassify our business and adjust the premiums accordingly.

Liability of a furniture manufacturer is much higher than of a business solely reselling soft home furnishings.

Once reclassified, Nautilus needs to re-instate our policy and refund us the extra premiums they have collected from us over the years.

Business

Response:

Thank you for contacting Nautilus Insurance Company ("Nautilus") regarding the above policyholder 's

concern.

We have completed a review of the policy and confirmed that it was appropriately classified according to the scope of the insured's operations. As such, Nautilus is not able to revise the classification shown on the policy or the premium amount due.

We regret that we could not provide the desired outcome.

Sincerely,

Poor un-Lawful business practices.

My business is insured by nautilus Insurance Co When I first signed up they asked me to estimate my payroll so I did. I estimated it around $25,000.00. After the year was up the audited me and found my payroll was around $56,000.00 they sent me a bill for an additional 2,700.00 They added the $25,000.00 and the $56,000.00 together and charged me the difference. They should have took the 56,000.00 and minus the 25,000.00 from it,and got a balance of 31,000.00 and then charge me the difference 31,000.00 x 45.516 = $1,410.96 I disputed the charge and nothing was done about it.I want some results. I am willing to pay the $1,410.96 I did not draw a pay during the year in question.

Review: The complaint has do with the disingenuous, dishonest and unresponsive nature in which [redacted] (Claims Examiner) has handled claim #[redacted]

(1)[redacted] (Attorney )at one point was assisting with the claim. She stated that [redacted] was non-responsive or at best very slow to respond. (2) Because of (1), [redacted] was accomplishing little other than generating a large bill. [redacted] let [redacted] go and asked [redacted] (a friend) to help. [redacted] continued to be non responsive. (3) [redacted] stated to [redacted] on Thursday, January 23, 2014, stating that "after your attorney saw the light of day, she offered to settle for $40,000". [redacted] denies making aforementioned settlement offer. (4) Also on Thursday, January 23, 2014, after a phone conversation [redacted] told [redacted] that he would address the issues discussed via the phone conversation in a follow up letter. [redacted] has sent at least 4 e-mails to [redacted] asking about the letter with no response or letter as of 2-11, 2014. (5) [redacted] has asked [redacted] to put forth a formal settlement offer, to date no such offer has been received. (6) (4) Also on Thursday, January 23, 2014, during a phone conversation [redacted] told [redacted] that he "doubted ted that the claim would ever been settled".

[redacted] has recorded every conversation with Mr [redacted] . Statements in quotations were taken from the recorded phone conversations.Desired Settlement: Would like Nautilus to put forth a honest, good faith effort to settle claim #[redacted]. This would include but would not be limited to:

A. Nautilus would be forthright with settlement offers

B. Nautilus would be forthright with reasons for settlement amounts

C. Nautilus would be truthful and comprehensive in statements and submissions

D. Nautilus would respond to questions and requests in a honest and timely manner

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:

This will acknowledge receipt of the complaint regarding the above captioned matter.

I personally looked into this matter and discussed the issues with the representative for [redacted], [redacted]. We mutually agreed upon a full and final settlement and the release was emailed today . The check will be issued promptly upon receipt of the signed release. We consider this matter closed .

Should there be any other questions , or if we can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. I may be reached between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:00 PM, Mountain Standard Time, at ###-###-#### .

Review: ive been calling for 2 months, my lawyer called, sec 8 has called, social security has to, and my contractor has called and still havent heard anything back from my claim, [redacted] has been back from her vacation since aug 10th and still no word, I have two tenants waiting to get there house back in order and nautiluis is holding my $35k-$40k check so I can pay my contractor and finish the work from the sinkhole on my property that they state on there insurance claims that they are responsible for, then in july I receive a letter saying that my insurance is cancelled as of aug 1, 2015, I shoulsve had my check by thenDesired Settlement: I want my check so I can finish with my other 2 units that need 2 b finished

Business

Response:

September 11, 2015[redacted]

[redacted]RE: Company: Nautilus Insurance CompanyClaim Number: [redacted]Insured: [redacted]Policy Number: [redacted]Date of Loss: 05/14/2015Policy Period: 01/20/2015 to 01/20/2016Loss Location: [redacted]Revdex.com Complaint ID: [redacted]Dear Dispute Resolution Consultant:We are in receipt of the Revdex.com complaint lodged against Nautilus Insurance Company by[redacted]. The complaint alleges that [redacted] has not heard anything regarding his claim for twomonths and that Nautilus Insurance Company has not paid his claim for damages.[redacted] with [redacted] reported a claim to us on June 18, 2015 for water damage thatoccurred on May 14, 2015. The claim was assigned to me on June 18, 2015. I contacted [redacted] onJune 18, 2015. [redacted] advised that a plumbing pipe had burst in the building resulting in waterdamage to the building. I reviewed [redacted]’s policy and advised [redacted] that the water damagewas not a covered cause of loss under his policy of insurance with Nautilus Insurance Company. Iprepared a disclaimer of coverage letter to the insured and the letter was mailed certified and regular mailon June 18, 2015. The certified letter was delivered and signed for on June 22, 2015. The claim wasclosed at this time.On July 8, 2015, I was contacted by the insured’s agent. The agent advised that [redacted] and hiscontractor advised the damages were due to a sinkhole. The claim was reopened and assigned to anindependent adjuster to inspect the damages. The independent adjuster inspected the property on July 13,2015 with [redacted]’s contractor; [redacted]. [redacted] advised that the pipe break was due toa sinkhole. At the time of the inspection, the pipe had been repaired and there was no evidence of asinkhole as the area in question had been repaired and backfilled. The contractor had installed a newcatch basin in the back yard. The original catch basin had been a hole covered with two pieces of wood.The independent adjuster opined that the broken water pipe was due to a failed catch basin, not asinkhole.[redacted] LLC[redacted]September 11, 2015Page 2On July 23, 2015, I advised the independent adjuster to engage the services of an engineer todetermine if a sinkhole was present on the property and if the sinkhole was the cause of the pipe breakand the ensuing water damage to the building.The engineer advised that there was water infiltration into the basement of the building. The waterinfiltration was caused by a water backup. The water infiltration was not caused by a water supply line.There was reported soil settlement in the front yard that was repaired prior to the inspection. Theengineer is not aware of any photographs of the soil settlement in the front yard. A brick catch basin inthe rear yard was deteriorated and falling apart. The catch basin was subsequently repaired.The engineer further opined that the water damage was caused by a water backup of a sewer line. Thebackup of the sewer line was caused by a fracture or blockage of the sewer line. This may have beenfrom the deteriorated catch basin in the rear yard. Based on the description of the soil settlement, it ispossible that there was a sewer line breakage in the front yard that caused blockage and the subsequentsoil settlement. However, the photographs of the soil settlement and contractor repair proposals wouldneed to be provided to further comment on this. There is no evidence provided to date that a sinkholecaused the events that led to the water infiltration into the subject building.As of the date of this letter, any photographs from the contractor and the contractor’s repair proposal havebeen provided to the engineer and we await the engineer’s final report.If you have questions regarding this matter, please call me at [redacted] ext. [redacted]Sincerely,Nautilus Insurance Company[redacted]Property SpecialistDirect Fax: [redacted]Email: [redacted]cc: [redacted]