Philadelphia Insurance Companies

March 30,
face="Calibri">
Revdex.com of Metro Washington D.C& Eastern Pennsylvania
RE: Insured: *** *** Zoo
Claimant: *** ***
Loss Date: 3/16/
Claim No: ***
Complaint No: ***
To whom it may concern:
This serves as the requested response to the above-referenced complaint
The loss involves a trip and fall accident that occurred on 3/16/at the *** *** Zoo in Colorado Springs, COThe claim was reported to Philadelphia Insurance Companies by our producer on 5/30/The claim was assigned to Nick P*** on 6/2/
Philadelphia started an investigation of the accident, including seeking to contact the claimant’s mother, *** *** on 6/4/On 6/6/14, Nick talked with *** ***, and advised her there is Medical Payments coverage for medical billsNick also obtained multiple reports from the Insured representatives involved in this claim.
No medical bills were received from *** *** by 8/29/Nick discussed our investigation with *** *** , and advised her verbally on 8/29/14, that we do not find any liability on our Insured for the accident, and denied the liability claim.
On 10/30/14, Attorney *** *** of Colorado Springs, CO forwarded a Letter of Representation of *** *** to PhiladelphiaOn 11/7/14, Nick sent a response to the letter, confirming that our Insured is not liable for the fallOn 11/11/14, Philadelphia received a letter from *** ***, withdrawing from her representation of *** ***.
*** *** continued to pursue a liability claim against Philadelphia, and advised on 11/10/14, that she would pursue a settlement in Small Claims CourtOn 11/14/2014, *** *** filed a Notice, Claim and Summons to Appear for Trial on 12/30/The trial occurred on 12/30/in County Court, El Paso County, COThe trial resulted in a verdict for the defenseOn 1/21/15, the Court issued an order confirming: “Court finds in Favor of Def Against Ptf.”
On 1/28/15, there was correspondence between Nick and *** ***Julia asked if Nick had received all the medical bills and reports she had submitted to the Defendant’s lawyer for the trialNick advised he had not, and requested same from *** *** *** forwarded documentation on 2/3/On 2/17/Nick issued a Medical Payments check in the amount of $
The documentation submitted by *** ***, was mostly *** Explanation of Benefits Claim(s) Detail sheets, many of which had the providers and dates of service redactedAs best as can be calculated, the total of the medical documentation totals $3,Philadelphia has already paid $toward the bills.
In the interest of resolution of this matter, Philadelphia is prepared to issue a Medical Payments check to *** *** and her husband, in the amount of $3,This check will be issued when we obtain the full name of *** ***’s Father**and *** *** must be advised that *** may eventually claim a right of subrogation of the bills, and seek reimbursement from PhiladelphiaAt that time, Philadelphia will advise *** that payment has already been made to Mrand *** ***.
Please advise if you need further information or clarification of this matter
Sincerely,
William *B***
Executive Vice President and Chief Claims Officer
Philadelphia Insurance Companies
A Member of the *** *** Group
*** *** *** *** ***
Bala Cynwyd, PA ***
Direct Dial ###-###-####
Toll Free ###-###-####
***@***.com

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
An EUO was not given however a minute in person recorded stated was given from me to William B*** (GCompliance and Investigations) only days after the claim was openDuring that minute investigation, it was also acknowledged that there was an open claim from *** *** with unaffiliated damages dated back to January 2015. A minute recorded phone statement was also made by *** *** to William B*** soon afterA 2-page notarized statement was also provided by *** *** to William B***It was only after months of ZERO cooperation from from PIIC that they requested a EUO to attempt to move forwardMeanwhile my car is sitting at my repair facility taking up space and creating storage costsIt wasnt even until month later that an estimate was left with the shop (by accident from *** ***)What insurance company takes months to provide an estimate??? PIIC is missing the big pictureThere is clear evidence that there is overlapping damage from the claim in January IE (wheels front bumper, etc)What about all the indisputable evidence of the non overlapping damages and tow bills that PIIC fails to recognize or pay outThis leads us back to November of with *** *** of *** ***He was able to acknowledge and resolve the entire estimate of overlapping damages in a matter of a few hoursOnce this information was presented back to PIIC, they didn't like his estimate and trying to lowball me with an insulting amount if $10,with strings attached in every way shape and formWhat insurance companies estimates a loss in round numbers without any justification? This company is beyond deceiving and fraudulentThey will hire and spend thousands of dollars to multiple attorney's, investigators, and appraisers to avoid assuming liabilityThe irony is for the money they spent out on all these parties was probably more than the claim itselfPIIC is eluding at all costs to provide a fair, honest, and accurate estimate as to what they should be liable forRegardless of what the policy states, PIIC can not play games for months and then request a EUO if it was so imperativeIf this was so crucial to this claim, it should have be request days or weeks after there was discrepancies, not monthsIt is not that I refused to cooperate, PIIC burned up months of my time and all my patienceHad I cooperated with them and provided a EUO, who is to say it would drag out another monthsI chose to move forward to have my car repaired on my terms and at the shops discrepancy only because PIIC gave me no other option as to how they conduct businessFor the record, the only reason PIIC is requesting a EUO after months is because it was brought to my knowledge that the recorded statement that *** *** and I have provided are MIA due to the fact that Mr William B*** is no longer with GCompliance and Investigations (3rd party hired by PIIC) and PIIC can not obtain copy's of the recording or transcriptsPIIC is beyond desperate at this point because they lost all the key information that was submittedIf this statement is false, please confirm for the record that you have our original statements and transcriptsIt is your legal duty to provide a copy for my records as promised by Mr William B*** who recorded the investigation
Regards,
*** ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***This business didn't send me the check as it promised at end of March 2015, until I called Revdex.com again in mid April & informed Revdex.com no check was received still, then Revdex.com reopened this case mid April I submitted more medical bills which was not included in this business' 1st calculationA person named Mike Mfrom this company called me over the phone after I informed Revdex.com reopened the case & talked me to lower the correct settlement amount by about $I wanted this thing to be over with, so I agreed to a settlement amount about $less the true cost of the total medical billsOn May 4, 2015, I finally received the settlement check from this company in the mailI'm glad this case is overThanks so much for Revdex.com's help on this matter! Revdex.com made this happen/ without Revdex.com this won't happen & won't happen this fast! Thank you Revdex.com so much for your involvement & help!
Regards,
*** ***

September 8,
class="MsoNormal" "MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt -31.5pt">
[redacted]
[redacted]
Franklin, MA [redacted]
RE: OUR CLAIM NO.: [redacted]
DATE OF LOSS: 07/21/
OUR INSURED: [redacted]
LOCATION: Franklin, MA
Dear [redacted],
In follow up to our conversation on August 27, 2015, regarding your recent request for assistance to resolve a property damage claim you were involved in with our insuredI wanted to apologize for the lack of communication and ensure you that we are in the process of resolving your claimWe have hired an Appraiser from Auto Claims Direct to inspect your vehicle within three business days or based on your convenienceOnce completed, they will report back to us their findings with an estimate of repairs and photographsYour Examiner Rose C[redacted] will contact you to discuss the results, repair process and payment direction
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
Ray R[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
Philadelphia Insurance Companies
###-###-####
[redacted]@[redacted].com
cc: [redacted]
Revdex.com

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Once again Philadelphia insurance is not correct and continue to act unethical in this matter. Lets cut right through their smokescreen response. I never indicated I was a Philadelphia insurance customer,although when thier customer rear ends someone destroying their business ( livelihood), boat,and life. Philadelphia insurance is responsible to make that person whole and put them back in the position they were in before the accident. Let us not forget thier customer that they insured was found one hundred percent at fault and negligent. Do your job! I never submitted a property damage claim to my insurance so that statement made by Philadelphia insurance is false. In Philadelphia insurance last response to the Revdex.com they state that their marine surveyor they used ,[redacted] is accredited through S.A.M.S. This also is false, after speaking with the president of the society today I found out he is not accredited, he is only an associate and has not earned his accreditation. Just another example of Philadelphia insurance unethical practices. Now on to their ridiculous notes in their last response. 1. There was high moisture in the wood core transom.Of course there is ,the boat sat at the marina for almost 3 months with the transom cracked open due to the accident letting the daily Florida summer heavy rains get into the wood core transom before the marine surveyor looked at.2. The hull of the claimants boat was made in 77 and titled in 78.What does this have to do with anything? Just another smokescreen. There is no valid point.3. The claimant would not provide the surveyor with the bill of sale.I bought the boat from a private individual. He signed the title and I bought the boat.which I told that to the surveyor. I cant provide something I dont have .another example of Philadelphia insurance  trying to construe the facts and acting unethical.4. The 1976 current listing in Florida had a new deck and stringers and the exact same hull as the claimants. The new deck and stringers adds value because the boat was restored  unlike the claimants. Where to begin,first the boat was not restored, it was repaired.huge difference. I have looked at the pictures in this listing. If this boat was restored it would be a thirty thousand dollar boat. Just because someone repaired it in their backyard doesn't add any value. It actually takes away from the value. Not being professionally restored. My boat was original, that means built by professional boat builders ,craftsmen. Not a shade tree hack job. 5. The claimant states that his hull is original. This does not add value it just means that you evaluate a hull that is 20 years old.This one is easy,they are completely wrong. What is worth more, an all original 57 chevy or one restored with after market parts in someone's garage in their spare time. The original, of course!6. The claimant's motor was a 96 and the fair market value for this motor is $2100.00 when you average the amounts found on [redacted],[redacted],and [redacted].YES ,my motor was a 96 with low hours that was professionally maintained by a certified marine mechanic. You can not buy a 96 225hp motor that runs for $2100.00 . Once again what is their point.In conclusion, I had a perfectly good charter boat before their customer destroyed it along with my livelihood. Philadelphia insurance is responsible and liable, period, end of discussion. This last response is just more proof of them acting unethical. Once again ,I never submitted a property damage claim to my own carrier. Like Philadelphia insurance claims. Another false statement.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This is this company's unique policy. I was able to easily find other companies that do not have the same policy requirement and went with one of them. You cannot force a customer to buy coverage they don't want! As soon as I told you I don't want the coverage, we are no longer obliged to pay for it! You've had us for almost 20 years of coverage without a claim or need for the professional liability or even any liability coverage at all for that matter. You lost a long term customer over a policy that does not make any sense. Your policy of penalizing a customer with a big cancellation fee is also quite ridiculous and not very ethical, I suggest you reconsider your policy.   
Regards,
[redacted]

October 12, 2016Dear [redacted]:This letter is to provide a response to the above captioned inquiry dated 10/03/2016.According to your correspondence, the Complainant contacted the Revdex.com regarding a property damage claim to her condominium unit. She states her claim involved the...

flooding of her condominium on or about July 30, 2016 and that her claim was denied. The Complainant is requesting a copy of the initial inspection report and asking that her claim be re-evaluated.Our Company provides the Complainant's Condominium Association with a Commercial General Liability Policy. This claim was reported to the company on 8/19/2016 along with a letter of representation from her attorney and assigned to an Examiner to investigate.Our Company is investigating any possible liability that the Association would have for the property damage to the Complainant's unit. Our Company did not participate in the inspection of her unit, nor have we issued a denial of her claim. Therefore, we are unable to provide the Complainant with a copy of the inspection report. We believe there is another insurance company that provides first party property coverage to the Association and/or the Complainant and was involved in the inspection of the unit.Our company continues to investigate this claim from a liability standpoint and will communicate our findings to the Complainant's attorney when the investigation is complete.Sincerely,William *. BExecutive Vice President & Chief Claims Officer

July 19, 2017Dear [redacted]:We are in receipt of your correspondence dated July 11, 2017 regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC) provided Business Automobile Liability Coverage to [redacted] & [redacted], Inc. under policy number...

[redacted] with effective dates of coverage of 2/10/17 thru 2/10/18.The initial notice of loss was reported to Philadelphia Insurance Companies on 04/10/17 by our insured. The handling Claims Examiner sent a contact letter to the Complainant on 04/11/17 as we did not have a phone number to reach the Complainant. No response was received from the Complainant until 05/03/17 when we received a letter of representation from the firm of Rogers Towers on behalf of the Complainant. Our Claims Examiner made contact with the attorney's office and we e-mailed their office the information they had requested.The attorney did not respond until May 08, 2017, at which time we assigned the appraisal company to inspect and evaluate the damages to the Complainant's boat, trailer, and motor. Subsequently, the boat, trailer, & motor were deemed a total loss as the estimate to repair them exceeded their value. We extended an offer on 05/22/17 to the attorney's office in the amount of $8,281.78 representing the Actual Cash Value of the boat, trailer & motor. A copy of our damage appraiser's valuation report, including quotes of comparables, was included.Our offer was rejected and the Complainant's attorney provided comparables which were significantly higher. Further, the Complainant's attorney advised us that his client was interested in repairing the boat rather than it being a total loss based on the comparables their office had provided. In a good faith effort to resolve the case we extended an offer to pay for the damage estimate written by our appraiser. This offer was also rejected. We were also advised by his attorney that the Complainant had contacted his own carrier as he was aware that he needed to mitigate his damages.We forwarded the comparables provided by the Complainant's attorney to our damage appraiser for evaluation. Based on his review, the valuation provided by the Complainant's attorney were not comparable to the subject property damaged. We advised the Complainant's attorney of our findings regarding his valuation, and advised him that we would get a second opinion as to the damages involved & value of the Complainant's damaged property.The Marine Surveyor assigned calculated the repair to the Complainant's boat, motor and trailer to be $16,040.03, reaffirming the property to be a total loss based on the $8,850 fair market value of the boat, motor and trailer. We again advised the Complainant's attorney that the property involved was a total loss and was not repairable. Based on the Marine Surveyor's valuation, we revised our initial total loss offer from $8,281.78 to $9,381.00 with Philadelphia retaining the salvage, or if the Complainant chose to retain the salvage (valued at $1,250 per the Marine Surveyor), we would be offering a net settlement of $8,131 ($9,381 ACV less $1,250 salvage retention value).We believe we have handled this matter fairly and in accordance with fair claims practices. Should you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the undersigned or the claims adjuster, Maria V[redacted].Sincerely,Tina BClaims Supervisor

October 13, 2017Dear [redacted]:Please allow this letter to serve as our response to Revdex.com Complaint ID # [redacted] received by our offices on 10/11/17.We did receive a claim reported by both [redacted] and our insured [redacted] on 09/15/17. It was assigned to a claims examiner who took [redacted]...

[redacted]’s statement and an appraiser was assigned to inspect her vehicle damage. The examiner also called our policyholder [redacted] and took his statement as well; this was a minor collision at a gas station.On 09/25/17 the examiner did receive an estimate for the damages to [redacted]’s vehicle, but the estimate for the damage did not match the loss description. Upon further investigation with [redacted], it was found that her vehicle had Unrelated Prior Damage from a previous loss. A supplement estimate was written on 10/04/17 for the related damage to [redacted]’s vehicle and payment was made. The examiner also paid for [redacted]’s car rental.Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.Sincerely,Joseph ZClaims Supervisor

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Thank you so much Revdex.com, finally I received the insurance policy only as soon as after the communication with your area (still awaiting the inspection report, another inspection was done on 10/15/16 after I received the email from the [redacted] Property Management that the Philadelphia Insurance Companies needs to inspect my unit, copied/pasted the email on the following page). Though the Philadelphia Insurance Companies claimed that they were not notified until 10/10/16 that I am not represented by lawyer, it is not matter if I am represented by a lawyer or not, the insurance policy and inspection report were never sent to my lawyer until the same day I received the insurance policy only on 10/26/16 (copied/pasted the email on the following page from my previous lawyer).The inspection report has never been received by either my previous lawyer or myself.After receiving the first Revdex.com response from the Philadelphia Insurance Companies and I didn’t accept the response on 10/13/16, I received an email on 10/14/16 from Ms. Rhonda Hutto, the Property Management of [redacted] Condominium Association with the subject that “Philadelphia Insurance - need to inspect the unit” (copied/pasted from the email). If the Philadelphia Insurance Companies is not involved, why the Philadelphia Insurance doing inspection, why there were all the emails (as on the following pages) for all the communications.(1)And, on one of the attachments (H[redacted] Letter 8.24.16) that Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the claim examiner from the Philadelphia Insurance Companies, noted on the letter to my previous lawyer that requesting for the “proof of the “theory of liability against our policyholder showing negligence on the part of the insured.”Question (1): Why asking for it, as soon as they asked for it, my previous lawyer had sent one of the proves promptly. But the Philadelphia Insurance Companies has never provided the insurance policy after two and half months until 10/26/16 after I contacted Revdex.com. Wondering after provided the proof to the Philadelphia Insurance Companies, and any adjustment or amendment needed to be done on the insurance policy during these past two and a half months, but that’s not sure, I am not sure neither. And finally the Philadelphia Insurance Companies said it after two and a half months’ communication that they are not involved. Why the Philadelphia Insurance Companies not mentioned anything about they are not involved and they didn’t have the inspection report at the very beginning during the month August while my previous lawyer was communicating with them. Is it someone thinking since without any lawyer represented, someone has no record of all the email/document communications at all.(2)Also, on 9/8/16, Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the claim examiner/adjuster from the Philadelphia Insurance Companies, emailed my previous lawyer (copied/pasted as on the following page) “The claim number is in the subject header and I am handling the investigative portion for this property damage claim. I will request my assistant send you a copy of the entire policy. The incident and investigative reports you request is considered work product and will not be released.” But my previous lawyer has never received any insurance policy until I contacted Revdex.com.Question (2): If the Philadelphia Insurance Companies is not part of it, what was the reason Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the claim examiner (or adjuster as stated on her email on 10/24/16) emailed my previous lawyer and letting him know that she is handling the investigative portion for my property’s damage.(3)In addition, on the email (copied/pasted on the following page) dated 10/24/16 from Ms. Dawn H[redacted], said “I am the adjuster on behalf of [redacted] Condominium investigating this property damage claim. We already sent an adjuster to assess the damages and determine the source of leak to see if it was foreseeable or preventable on the part of our insured. Also, we were not notified from your previous attorney until 10/10/16 that is he is no longer representing you and I see that you were cc’d on that email.Question (3): What was the reason that the Philadelphia Insurance Companies had an adjuster to assess the damages of my condo on 10/15/16 for inspection (copied/pasted email on received from Ms. Hutto on 10/14/16)). On the 2nd Revdex.com response from Philadelphia Insurance Companies that they said they were not involved in inspection. First why Ms. Dawn H[redacted] said on her email dated 9/8/16 “The incident and investigative reports you request is considered work product and will not be released” Ms. Dawn H[redacted] said “will not be released” only. It seems being implied that the Philadelphia Insurance Companies has the inspection report, but will not be released. Is it the Philadelphia Insurance Companies is being contradicting themselves. Also, is it not a matter if I am represented by a lawyer or not being represented by a lawyer, my previous lawyer has never received the insurance policy requested two times (copied/pasted the email on the following page, that was quoted, dated on 8/30/16), until I contacted Revdex.com.On 9/14/16 and 9/18/16 (emails are copied/pasted on the following page), I emailed Ms. Dawn H[redacted] to find out the status of the insurance policy and the inspection report. She replied on 9/30/16 (email copied/pasted on the following page) “Since you are attorney represented, all communication must go through your attorney. Thanks”. Then Ms. Dawn H[redacted] emailed my previous lawyer (email copied/pasted on the following page) to send a letter to confirm that I am no longer represented by him. On 8/24/16, Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the claim examiner/adjuster from the Philadelphia Insurance Companies requested the “proof of the “theory of liability against our policyholder showing negligence on the part of the insured.” on a letter dated 8/24/16 (right after the inspection of my condo done on 8/23/16) to my previous lawyer.After the first proof provided on 8/30/16 via my previous lawyer’s email (about the [redacted] Condominium stated on a notice dated 7/11/16, requesting the second time of assessment fee this year, a total $1200 for the year of 2016, due to the plumbing hasn’t been fixed for 40 years), Ms. Dawn H[redacted] has never responded to my lawyer’s email since then, until I contacted Revdex.com. Of course, the insurance policy was not provided according to the statutes stated that should be supplied in 30 days upon request (not sure if some adjustment needed to be done, that was just wondering, I am not sure) after two and a half months, in October.Question (4): What was the reason that Ms. Dawn H[redacted] emailed in asking my previous lawyer on 10/10/16, after I contacted Revdex.com, to send a letter to confirm that he was no longer representing me anymore, if the Philadelphia Insurance Companies are not involved. What was the reason that the Philadelphia Insurance Companies has to clarify if I am being represented or not being represented by a lawyer, if they are not involved. Why the Philadelphia Insurance Companies has never said anything that they are not involved from the beginning of all the email/letter communication with my previous lawyer since during the month of August, unless someone thinks I have no record at all (Fortunately I have a copy of all the communications. And any additional proves I will be provided.)(5)After I rejected the Philadelphia Insurance Companies’s first Revdex.com response on 10/13/16, instead of immediately providing the second response right after, Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the claim examiner/adjuster, from the Philadelphia Insurance Companies, sent me an email on 10/24/16 (copied/pasted as on the following page) and I responded back on 10/26/16 and provided more details about the proof of the negligence about the [redacted] Condominium Association. As soon as I responded to Ms. Dawn H[redacted], the Philadelphia Insurance Companies sent the 2nd response to Revdex.com the next day on 10/27/16. The Philadelphia Insurance Companies provided some other insurance name/names on the 2nd Revdex.com response, that in the past few months on my previous lawyer’s email/letter communications never seen them before. Why the Philadelphia Insurance not providing those information at the very beginning during the month of August 2016 or even during the first Revdex.com response. Is it the whole story seems like didn’t add up and the Philadelphia Insurance companies seems like contradicting themselves. They stated on the 2nd Revdex.com response that the insurance policy effective from 10/18/2015 to 10/18/2016. Are they trying to imply in saying that it is expired. The two flooding incidents, due to the condo association plumbing issues were happened during the insurance policy in effect date.Question (5): Why the Philadelphia Insurance Companies didn’t reply directly to Revdex.com for their 2nd response at the very place, instead, they were sending me an email before providing the 2nd Revdex.com response. Why the Philadelphia Insurance Companies provided those other insurance company name/names on the 2nd Revdex.com response that never seen on any of my previous lawyer’s email communications with the Philadelphia Insurance Companies, at the very beginning in August throughout the two and a half months. Maybe some party(ies) really think I have no clue, no idea or no record of anything at all, on any of all the previous communications for these past two and a half months, but I am not sure. Also, why taking two and a half months to forward the full insurance policy. According to the Statutes stated that it should be provided in 30 days upon request. Wondering the policy maybe needed to be reconstructed and adjusted, not sure, and no one would know neither. I am not sure.Thank you so much Revdex.com, I have never received the insurance policy until contacted your area, still awaiting the inspection report (as told verbally my water heater bursted, and nothing in writing). After the first incident of water draining from the ceiling on top of my air conditioning unit, the second incident happened again with the same situation, while my water heater was shut off and it is still working perfectly. As soon as I am getting in touch with your area, communication resumed and received the full insurance policy very soon after my complaint, though after two and a half months.If there is any possible opportunities, I would like to meet with any media to disclose all these irresponsible and ridiculous responses if I didn’t get any final justice at the end. So that I may/can furnish all the communications, pictures and videos, also I may/can ask the professionals to proof the negligence of the condo association’s piping issues, in causing the damage of my condo. This will/may help to share with others to make people be aware, just in case, especially to remind people to keep a record of everything on all the communication, no matter under the situation of being represented or not being represented by any lawyer. Also, make sure to do your own investigation on the cause of any damage. Thank you again Revdex.com.Regards,
[redacted]

August 4, 2017Dear [redacted]:We are in receipt of your correspondence dated July 11, 2017 regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC) provided Business Automobile Liability Coverage to [redacted], Inc. under policy number [redacted] with effective dates of coverage of 2/10/17 thru 2/10/18.Your letter indicates that [redacted] is our customer. We wanted to clarify this information. [redacted] is not our customer or our insured. [redacted] is a 3rd party claimant. [redacted]'s attorney advised us that he has his own coverage and is aware that he should be mitigating his damages by filing his boat claim through his own earner.As indicated in our initial response, we have had [redacted]'s boat evaluated and inspected by two different companies. On August 2nd, 2017 we reviewed the valuation report and the concerns raised by [redacted] with the Marine Surveyor, [redacted], who is accredited through SAMS-SA. He completed a thorough review of the comparables to conduct a fair and impartial valuation of the claimant's hull, motor and trailer.• The inspection of the claimant's boat revealed it was not restored like the comparables (there was high moisture in the wood core transom).• The Hull of the claimant's boat was made in 77 and titled in 78.• The claimant would not provide the surveyor with his bill of sale.• The 1976 current listing in Florida had a new deck and stringers and the exact same hull as the claimants.The new deck and stringers adds value because the boat was restored unlike the claimant's.• The claimant states that his hull is original. This does not add value it just means that you evaluate a hull that is 20 years old.• The claimant's motor was a 96 and the fair market value for this motor is $2,100.00 when you average the amounts found on NADA, BUC and ABOS.We are currently at an impasse in our effort to resolve his property damage claim. [redacted]'s attorney let us know early on that his client submitted a claim to his own carrier. If the claimant would like us to handle his property damage claim, our offer is $9,381.00 if Philadelphia Insurance Companies retains the salvage and $8,131.00 if[redacted] retains the salvage.We believe we have handled this matter fairly and in accordance with fair claims practices. Should you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the undersigned or the claims adjuster, Maria V[redacted] ###-###-####.Sincerely,Tina BClaims Supervisor

To whom it may concern, We are sorry to hear of this insured's dissatisfaction.  We have reviewed the circumstances of this complaint and have come to the conclusion that the requested changes were handled appropriately and no further accommodation will be made. Based on the...

operations of this insured, professional liability is a required coverage per our underwriting guidelines since their operations include providing a standard of care to their clients which creates a professional liability exposure.  Philadelphia Insurance Companies have provided insurance coverage for 15 years and professional liability has been included on each annual policy term.  Upon receipt of the request from [redacted]'s independent insurance agent asking for professional liability to be removed from the policy, Philadelphia Insurance Companies advised that professional liability is a required coverage for this product line and removing the coverage would not be possible.   When the insured requested that coverage be cancelled mid-term, standard process was followed in accordance with the policy conditions.  The cancelled policy did incur 23 days of coverage from 10/19/2016-11/11/2016 and thus incurs earned premium due including some fully earned coverage lines. Policy conditions outline that if the first Named Insured cancels, the refund may be less than pro rata.   We appreciate the opportunity to review the situation and ensure that proper unearned premiums were returned to the insured.  At this time, there will be no additional consideration made to adjust the earned premium due.   Carrie S[redacted], CIC, CPCU, AU, AIMVice President, Customer Service OperationsPhiladelphia Insurance Companies

[redacted],
Again, I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the automatic renewal of your policy and the subsequent need to contact us to resolve the situation.  I did acknowledge that the policy was renewed after you had advised that would did not wish to renew. 
As noted, at this point all possible steps to correct the error have been taken.  The policy cancellation is now effective at inception, the reinstatement fee has been waived and the account reflects a zero balance.  I apologize that the reinstatement fee invoice was released by our systems before the representative processed the transaction to remove the fee when you had clearly requested no further communication.  You have seen clearly demonstrated that our system programming cannot always be manually adjusted to prevent a document from being created - first, for your policy renewal and now, for the reinstatement fee invoice.   
I understand and agree that the frustration and inconvenience you experienced was unnecessary.  I'm sorry, but all I can offer is an apology as we are not in a position to provide payment or recompense in any other fashion. 
 
Carrie S[redacted], CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM
Assistant Vice President, Customer Service Operations
Philadelphia Insurance Companies
A Member of the Tokio Marine Group
 
One Bala Plaza, Ste 100
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Internal Dial: 801.1467
Direct Dial: ###-###-####
Direct Fax: ###-###-####
 
Focus on the things that Matter, We’ll Handle the Risk!
To learn more about us, visit PHLY.com.

November 2, 2017Dear [redacted],Please allow this letter to serve as our response to Revdex.com Complaint ID # [redacted] received by our of?ces on 11/2/2017.Renewal information for policy number [redacted] was sent to the customer in March 2017. As of 8/1 1/17, We did not receive payment, or...

written notice from [redacted] that he wished to cancel the policy. The policy was automatically renewed on 6/21/17. The coverage period was 6/21/17-6/21/18, and the policy was cancelled for non-payment on 8/30/2017. On page 9 of the policy documents provided to the customer in June 2017, point #2 provides details on cancellation. This includes the stipulation that : “ thispolicy may be canceled by mailing to the named entity , at the address stated in the Declarations, not less than 45 days thereafter or 10 days in the case of non-payment of premium or Deductible, such cancellation shall become effective. If the policy is canceled by us, earned premium shall be computed pro-rata. ”The customer failed to notify us of his intent not to renew the policy. In accordance with the requirements, the customer’s policy was renewed and coverage was in effect beginning 6/21/17, and continued through the date of cancellation 8/30/17. The period of coverage resulted in an eamed premium of $298.00, which the customer was required to pay. Since we did not receive the payment due after several notices of delinquency, the account was transferred to a Collections Agency.If you have any further questions and/or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly.Best Regards,Thomas C.Assistant Vice President, Customer Service

The independent insurance agent representing [redacted] has advised him that a completed and signed Policy Release Form is needed in order to have the company process the cancellation he requested.  I've copied specific points in the attached email correspondence that pertain to what...

is needed and the consequence of not providing the necessary document.  [redacted] has received your request to cancel the above-referenced insurance policy/policies.To make the cancellation effective, please complete and return the attached Cancellation/Policy Release Form. Please note that until we receive the signed document, your policy will remain in force, and premium will be charged. Until we receive that form, the premium continues to accrue until finally the policy is cancelled for non payment of premium.As [redacted] with [redacted] has advised once this completed Policy Release Form is received, Philadelphia will honor that cancellation date and process the policy change to cancel coverage effective 8/24/2016 eliminating the outstanding earned premium being charged.Carrie S[redacted], CIC, CPCU, AU, AIMVice President, Customer Service OperationsPhiladelphia Insurance CompaniesA Member of the Tokio Marine Group [redacted]Bala Cynwyd, PA [redacted]Direct Dial: ###-###-#### | Mobile: ###-###-####Internal Dial: 801.1467 | Direct Fax: ###-###-####ThinkPHLY.com – Find out why you should ThinkPHLY first

July 29, 2014
Dear [redacted] :The Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company issued a Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy to [redacted], Inc., under Policy Number [redacted] with effective dates of the applicable policies from 04/02/2014 to 04/02/2015.This letter is in...

response to the letter of July 10, 2014 from the Revdex.com to [redacted] from Philadelphia Insurance Company.Please be advised that we initially spoke with the above captioned claimant on Jun 13, 2014. We advised her that we have to complete our liability investigation and set up an assignment for an independent appraiser to inspect her vehicle.After we completed our liability investigation, we sent a liability denial to the claimant as we found no negligence on the part of our insured in failing to maintain the carwash or any notice of any prior problems with it prior to this occurrence.We spoke with the claimant again on July 21, 2014. She advised us that she was under the impression that we were going to take care of her damages and then we denied her claim. We advised her that the appraisal was for inspection only and pointed out where it said so on the estimate.
On July 22nd we agreed to compromise the disputed claim and pay the claimant's five hundred dollar comprehensive deductible and the claimant accepted. A check for $500.00 was issued to the claimant that day.If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please contact the undersigned at ###-###-#### or the Supervisor, Jeffrey M[redacted], at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
 Jeffrey MClaims Supervisor

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
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. 
Regards,
[redacted]

November 10, 2015 Dear [redacted]:This will acknowledge [redacted]’s request that we prepare a response to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) by [redacted]. I attempted to access the complaint on the internet in the hopes that I could input the response directly, but was...

unable to do so. As such, what follows is my proposed response for Philadelphia Insurance to input into the system, with whatever changes are deemed necessary. Should you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.Very truly yours,WILLIAM P. For the Firm

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
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.  I will accept Philadelphia's Medical Payments check to [redacted] and my husband, [redacted], in the amount of $3,551.55.Thanks so much for your help in this matter!
Regards,
[redacted]

March 30, 2015
Revdex.com of Metro Washington D.C. & Eastern Pennsylvania
RE:         ...

Insured:                               [redacted] Zoo
                Claimant:                            [redacted]
                Loss Date:                           3/16/14
                Claim No:                            [redacted]
                Complaint No:                  [redacted] 
To whom it may concern:
This serves as the requested response to the above-referenced complaint.
The loss involves a trip and fall accident that occurred on 3/16/14 at the [redacted] Zoo in Colorado Springs, CO. The claim was reported to Philadelphia Insurance Companies by our producer on 5/30/14. The claim was assigned to Nick P[redacted] on 6/2/14.
Philadelphia started an investigation of the accident, including seeking to contact the claimant’s mother, [redacted] on 6/4/14. On 6/6/14, Nick talked with [redacted], and advised her there is Medical Payments coverage for medical bills. Nick also obtained multiple reports from the Insured representatives involved in this claim.  
No medical bills were received from [redacted] by 8/29/14. Nick discussed our investigation with [redacted] , and advised her verbally on 8/29/14, that we do not find any liability on our Insured for the accident, and denied the liability claim.  
On 10/30/14, Attorney [redacted] of Colorado Springs, CO forwarded a Letter of Representation of [redacted] to Philadelphia. On 11/7/14, Nick sent a response to the letter, confirming that our Insured is not liable for the fall. On 11/11/14, Philadelphia received a letter from [redacted], withdrawing from her representation of [redacted].   
[redacted] continued to pursue a liability claim against Philadelphia, and advised on 11/10/14, that she would pursue a settlement in Small Claims Court. On 11/14/2014, [redacted] filed a Notice, Claim and Summons to Appear for Trial on 12/30/14. The trial occurred on 12/30/14 in County Court, El Paso County, CO. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defense. On 1/21/15, the Court issued an  order confirming: “Court finds in Favor of Def Against Ptf.”
On 1/28/15, there was correspondence between Nick and [redacted]. Julia asked if Nick had received all the medical bills and reports she had submitted to the Defendant’s lawyer for the trial. Nick advised he had not, and requested same from [redacted] forwarded documentation on 2/3/15. On 2/17/15 Nick issued a Medical Payments check in the amount of $69.11.
The documentation submitted by [redacted], was mostly [redacted] Explanation of Benefits Claim(s) Detail sheets, many of which had the providers and dates of service redacted. As best as can be calculated, the total of the medical documentation totals $3,620.66. Philadelphia has already paid $69.11 toward the bills. 
In the interest of resolution of this matter, Philadelphia is prepared to issue a Medical Payments check to [redacted] and her husband, in the amount of $3,551.55. This check will be issued when we  obtain the full name of [redacted]’s Father. **. and [redacted] must be advised  that [redacted]  may eventually claim a right of subrogation of the bills, and seek reimbursement from Philadelphia. At that time, Philadelphia will advise [redacted] that payment has already been made to Mr. and [redacted].          
Please  advise  if you need further information or clarification of this matter.
Sincerely,
William *. B[redacted]
Executive  Vice President and Chief Claims  Officer
Philadelphia Insurance Companies
A Member of the [redacted] Group
[redacted]
Bala Cynwyd, PA [redacted]
Direct Dial ###-###-####
Toll Free  ###-###-####
[redacted].com