New Jersey Medical Institute Kaplan Medical

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:After being notified on July 14, 2016 that [redacted] (who is part of the reason I had to contact the Revdex.com in the first place) was not to contact me in any way (phone, email, in person, etc.) Traveler's has apparently instructed her to contact me in regards to the diminished value claim. That is completely unprofessional and not acceptable. I have already emailed Cory Blankenship to inform him of the issue and I am awaiting his response.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent 11/10/2015.....
It is our understanding that
this claim has now been resolved to his satisfaction and there are no
outstanding issues.

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

[redacted] - Travelers Home Owners Insurance
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  I received the letter from Travelers and spoke with them about this letter.  In fact, it is NOT correct by their own admission.  The representative I spoke with, Mr. Thomas M[redacted] was also rude and tried to tell me there would be no further conversation on the matter and this was Travelers final decision.  And, by the way, please know you and Travelers certainly have my permission, by virtue of this filing, for my consent to address the my file.  What a BS statement saying they can't address the specifics of my policy.Travelers states there were four claims during the 4 or 5 year period of review (no clarified timeline in their letter of November 17, 2015), and stated only two of the claims were weather related.  In fact, upon questioning, Mr. M[redacted] at Travelers admitted 3 claims were found to be weather related; two claims on the same roof problems during this past October 2014-March 2015 winter with record setting snow accumulation and one prior weather claim back in 2011.  Kindly confirm the total amount of the three weather related claims in four years is less than $13,000 to cover repairs.  The claims DID NOT replace a kitchen, or something of more substantial nature. The 4th and final claim in May/June 2014, was the for the loss of a small hearing aid, in a public place.  I believe the amount received after the deductible was less than $850.These claims are what we have the policies for.  They are certainly NOT out of the ordinary nor excessive in total amount for a four year period, especially when there is severe New England weather.  Travelers should be required to review my 35+ year history of home owners, property and other insurance and my premiums paid.Travelers should 1) promptly reinstate me with 2) full apology, 3) apply retroactive group policy customer discounts, 4) receive credit for senior benefit / inconvenience / stress and 5) be given full reimbursement for the cost of having to change insurance policies to a much higher rate and necessity for me to pur[redacted] an additional liability policy to satisfy [redacted] Bank, my mortgage lender.  In fact, treble damages should be stressed.I am ready and willing to be interviewed by the [redacted] and [redacted] news media and will also consider asking a major Connecticut TV/Radio Network launch their own investigation.  If these minimal losses over a four year period cause Travelers to cancel long-time, loyal, senior customers, they should be publically humiliated and fined, accordingly.Kindly continue your excellent Revdex.com/CT efforts for proper customer service and satisfaction.  Thank you very much and kindly confirm receipt of this continued complaint. 
With kind regards,
[redacted], [redacted], ** 01810  [redacted]

A response was sent to Ms [redacted] as follows:
"We have been contacted by the RevDex.com on your behalf. You have asked for a status confirmation of the
above noted policies.
Your condominium policy has been
reinstated, without lapse.  A
reinstatement declaration was issued on you on May 17, 2015. Your auto policy
has been cancelled in accordance with your request, effective May 12, 2015.
Ms. [redacted], we apologize for any
inconvenience you experienced and thank you for insuring with us. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions"  (contact information was provided in the response letter)

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  They are wrong.  Page 3 of the settlement includes gastroparesis.  They have denied the bills purported billed as sore throat, but in reality are also part of the claim as the sore throat arose from constant vomiting. She was hospitalized for several days for severe vomiting just days after that.Also, during the day of the settlement, their attorney agreed to pay all bills.  Their statement in their letter stating they rejected it, we have nothing in writing in the contract that substantiates that.  We reject their claims
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent to [redacted], 2/26/2015:
Thank you for your response to
Travelers through the Revdex.com regarding the cancellation of your
homeowner’s policy.
I can confirm the refund
check for $1098 has been mailed to you at the address listed above. If you have
not received the check by March 3, 2015, please let us know.

A response has been sent to Ms. [redacted] 5/6/5015 as follows:
I have completed a review of your homeowners policy
in response to your request for the credit and supporting documentation.
During my review, I was unable to locate the
verification of the alarms sent to us prior to April 17,...

2015.  We successfully received the required proof
of the burglar and fire alarms via fax on April 17, 2015.  We have modified your policy to include the
credits for the June 11, 2014 – June 11, 2015 policy term, as well as your
upcoming renewal for June 11, 2015 – June 11, 2016.
The upcoming renewal for June 11, 2015 was mailed to
you originally reflecting a total premium of $816.  A credit of $32 was applied to this policy and
an updated copy of your policy was mailed to you.  The revised annual premium for the renewal is
$784.00. 
Regarding your billing and how these credits have
been applied, your policy was paid in full for June 11, 2014 – June 11, 2015 in
the amount of $792.  When the 2015
renewal offer was issued, the balance was $816. 
Two credits of $32 have been applied, reducing the total balance due to
$752.  If we receive a payment from your
mortgage company for an amount other than this balance due, we will issue a
refund check directly to you for the difference.  As of today’s date, we have not yet received
payment.
 
Enclosed, I have provided you with a
confirmation of the policy change for the current policy period, expiring on
June 11, 2015.  I have also included a
copy of your billing history reflecting the credits we have applied to your
policy.  A copy of your policy has also
been mailed to you under a separate cover. 
Please feel free to contact our service center if we need to update your
mailing address.

A response has been sent 12/16/2015......
Your insurance application for Workers’ Compensation and exclusion form on file sent to Travelers by your agent only named you to be excluded; therefore, when the physical audit was completed, the auditor excluded you as the policy endorsement...

indicated. 
It was not until you sent over the signed exclusion forms for [redacted] * Change dated 12/12/13 attached to your complaint that we were able to determine that your intent was to also exclude the other two officers.
I worked with our Underwriter and they allowed an adjustment to your billing in the amount of $4,960 credit for the exposure charged on the audit for [redacted] Change.

A response was sent to [redacted] 12/29/2015.
Both claims were denied due to policy exclusions.
Additionally, the roof leak claim was reopened, for consideration of documents received from [redacted]'s contractor, however, when Travelers requested a re inspection of the roof, it had already been...

replaced and contractor was just finishing up.  Travelers was not given the opportunity to re-inspect the roof therefore no further consideration could be given.
Contact information was provided in this response to [redacted] if she had any additional questions.

We received the Revdex.com complaint, your file # [redacted] – [redacted] out of New York, however, we cannot identify his business insurance policy in our system.  We require additional information: Business Name Business Address Policy Number

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I do not agree with this reps assessment. The leak in the kitchen just started .We made the call as soon the water started coming in. A few weeks went by before we were able to actually get together for our claim That is why it appears as though it was going on for a while.. I think the insurance company is just looking for any reason to avoid paying. The other part of the claim is a wall in our bathroom. They claim it was going on for a long time. We can not see through the wall .The only way we knew we had a problem is that a bunch of ceramic tiles fell on me as I was taking a shower. Rep claims roof exhaust cap has a hole in it. Sounds to me that they need to pay to replace roof cap and damages inside my home. We did not allow this to go on for a long time. I challenge this rep to show me how that hole in exhaust cap took out my bathroom wall. He does not know. He did not go up in the attic. He just looked for the quickest way to decline our claim. He did not even tell us he was going to decline us while he was at our home. He ran back to his office and mailed us a letter. This claim needs to be paid.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

A response was sent 12/8/2015:
Contactor provided an estimate that did not match Travelers,  Mr. [redacted] discussed with the contractor his estimate and they agreed to charge $1500 versus their original estimate of $4400.  Mr. [redacted] is awaiting a revised estimate from his contractor. ...

Once that occurs Travelers claim can confirm the amounts and negotiate any differences.  Although the process has not gone as smoothly as we all have wished, the claim representatives are sensitive to Mr. [redacted]'s situation and apologize if their actions were not consistent with his expectation.

A response was sent 9/22/2016.
Thank you for the valuable feedback you shared in your inquiry. We have reviewed your concerns and have shared your experience with our leadership team for review and to share the learning opportunities for improvement going forward.

A response was sent 6/27/2016 outlining the billing history, up to the policy cancellation.

A response was sent on June 23, 2015:
Mr. [redacted] was involved in an accident on August
10, 2014; the vehicle had 38142 miles at the date of loss.  Mr. [redacted] chose to use [redacted]
Collision as his repair facility. This repair facility is not a participant...

in
Travelers Direct Repair Program and therefore Travelers does not guarantee any
repairs.
Travelers and Bob [redacted] Collision both inspected Mr. [redacted] vehicle and no damage was found to the engine at this time nor during the
repair process.  Mr [redacted] drove his
car for over 20,000 miles after repairs were made before having an issue with
the engine.
The estimate was prepared and agreed upon with the repair facility
using alternative parts as allowed by the policy. The use of alternative parts was
disclosed in writing through the written estimate and verbally to Mr.
[redacted]. The alternative part Travelers wrote on the estimate for the
radiator carried a lifetime limited warranty, of which [redacted] would not be
responsible for. The use of this part did not void the warranty of any other
part in the vehicle, as protected by federal law.
On May 18, 2015 Travelers was informed of a problem that Mr.
[redacted] had with his vehicle. The vehicle had a mechanical breakdown to the
motor. The speculation at the time was that the radiator may have been the
reason.
 On May 20, 2015 Travelers sent an appraiser to the [redacted]
dealership, [redacted], where the vehicle was located.  Travelers inspected the vehicle with the
technician and service writer and found that the radiator was properly
installed and had no evidence of physical impact. The current mileage on the
vehicle at this reinspection was [redacted]. Travelers also discovered that the
original repair facility, [redacted], had used a vendor of their own
choosing for the radiator.
Travelers at this time attempted to have [redacted]
communicate with [redacted] but there was limited communication. The
original repair facility felt that the engine was the problem.
Since neither repair facility would move
forward to diagnose the true issue and for customer service purposes, Travelers
authorized the removal and testing of the radiator on May 21, 2015. [redacted] removed the radiator and found that the radiator had failed.  Travelers presented this information to the
original repair facility in [redacted], [redacted]. [redacted] refused to remedy the situation. 
They sighted the mileage difference from August 2014 to May 2015 as a
reason for the failure.
Since the damage to Mr [redacted] vehicle is
mechanical in nature and not due to a covered cause off loss, Travelers cannot
cover the loss to the radiator or the engine.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This still does not resolve the actual valuation issue. I have requested the cars used in the valuation to be sent to me and have been refused. I can not accept a claim amount if I do not know where they are getting figures from. I did my own research and came up with a $2,000 difference which has not been discussed.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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

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

A response was sent 8/31/2016....
"We completed an investigation of this claim, which included review of the police report as well as statements from both drivers involved.  Unfortunately the statements conflicted, giving separate accounts of the facts of the accident.  Based on our...

investigation, we did not accept liability on behalf of our insured.
 
I recommend that you pursue this matter with your insurance carrier so that they may investigate on your behalf.  There is a binding arbitration process that insurance companies follow when there is a dispute on liability, and we would adhere to this process."