Philadelphia Insurance Companies

From: H[redacted], Seth<[redacted]@phly.com>Date: Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:55 AMSubject: RE: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania complaint #[redacted].To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>I would like to provide an update to this particular complaint.  This customer is stating we never sent a check but I have the cashed check available to post.  Plus we actually sent for more than what they were originally asking. complaint #[redacted].Seth *. H[redacted]SVP, Customer ServicePhiladelphia Insurance CompaniesA Member of the [redacted] Group[redacted]Bala Cynwyd, PA [redacted]Direct Dial: ###-###-####  |  Mobile: ###-###-####ThinkPHLY.com – Find out why your should ThinkPHLY first

February 10, 2016Customer's response unfortunately misstates several facts and ignores the big picture as to why her claim was denied. Under the policy Customer signed and agreed to, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”) has the express right to investigate any claim. When it became clear that the alleged damage to the vehicle in the May 2015 loss overlapped the unrepaired damage from the January 2015 loss (for which she submitted a separate claim with her prior insurance company), Customer ceased all cooperation with PIC's investigation to resolve these inconsistencies.In her most recent comment, Customer has alleged that PIIC previously assumed liability for her claim. This is patently false.Customer also continues to allege that she previously gave an examination under oath (“EUO”) in accordance with the terms of her policy. This is untrue. As was repeatedly explained to Customer, an EUO is different from an initial claim report. An EUO is a sworn statement involving a Court Reporter and is expressly allowed under Customer's policy. An informal initial report, whether recorded or not, is not under oath and is not given before a Court Reporter.The simple fact is that, despite numerous requests by PIIC and its counsel, Customer never gave a single EUO regarding this claim. This is far from providing "full cooperation' as Customer has alleged. Not only is Customer's steadfast refusal to provide an EUO a direct violation of her policy, it also is very telling as to the validity, or lack thereof, of her property damage claim.If Customer had a legitimate claim, she would have given an EUO when it was first requested several months ago. This would have allowed PIIC to pursue a speedy resolution of her claim. By repeatedly refusing to submit to a single EUO, however, Customer singlehandedly blocked PIIC from investigating the prior damage inconsistencies. The only reasonable conclusion for Customer's behavior is that she was aware of legitimacy problems with her claim that she did not want to explain under oath.Customer's most recent comment asks why an EUO was not requested immediately after the filing of her claim. Although her policy does not provide PIIC with any time-restrictions in which to request an EUO, the simple answer is that Customer did not disclose the pre-existing and overlapping damage to her vehicle when she filed her claim. The overlapping damage only came to light later, during the course of PIIC's investigation.More than once, Customer stated in writing that she refused any further cooperation in PIIC's investigation, which prejudiced PIC's investigation. Because Customer precluded PIIC from investigating her claim, PIIC had no alternative but to deny her claim under the policy language. Customer previously was advised that, per her policy, her refusal would result in a denial of coverage, but she nevertheless continued to actively impede PIC's investigation.For reference’s sake, the pertinent portions of Customer's policy under which her claim was denied are quoted below:We IPIICI have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us.B. A person seeking coverage must:I. Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of anyclaim or suit.3. Submit, as often as we reasonably require:b. To examination under oath and subscribe to same.Because Customer has refused to cooperate with PIC's investigation of her claim, and has failed to submit to a single EUO in furtherance of PIIC's investigation, PIIC has no duty to provide coverage under her policy. The denial of Customer's claim rests solely with Customer's express refusal to cooperate in violation of her policy.PIIC remains diligent and professional in responding to, investigating, and resolving legitimate claims of its insureds in accordance with their policies and with its insureds cooperation.

[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]

September 8, 2015
 
[redacted]
Franklin, MA [redacted]
 
RE:         OUR CLAIM NO.:             ...

[redacted]
                DATE OF LOSS:                  07/21/2015
                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 insured. I wanted to apologize for the lack of communication and ensure you that we are in the process of resolving your claim. We have hired an Appraiser from Auto Claims Direct to inspect your vehicle within three business days or based on your convenience. Once completed, they will report back to us their findings with an estimate of repairs and photographs. Your 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].com
 
cc: [redacted]
 Revdex.com

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

To Whom it May Concern,
0pt" class="MsoNormal"> 
Our representative spoke with [redacted] on July 22nd and confirmed that the cancellation has been processed effective 3/7/2014 and that there is no balance due on the account.  We apologize that the policy was automatically renewed after [redacted] had advised that she did not wish to renew coverage and that the process of cancelling that policy required more effort than expected. 
 
Below is a timeline of activity for the account. 
 
[redacted] dba [redacted]                                   ...⇄ [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Policies:  [redacted]
3/4/2014 – Contact Center Rep received a call from the insured regarding cancelling the renewal policies. Insured was referred to her agent and request was uploaded into RapidSure and Path. This was not an LPP.
5/13/2014 – Cancellation notice for non-pay generates from [redacted] (No LPR was received)
5/13/2014 – Contact center received call from insured regarding the cancellation.  She was referred to her agent again.
5/21/2014 – LPR’s were sent to the insured for cancellation based off the note from the contact center on 5/13/2014.
6/20/2014 – 1st Letter of collection issued. Agent is notified as well.
6/20/2014 – Collections Rep. Resent LPR’s to the insured advising of the previous request for cancellation and that collection action is starting.
6/23/2014 – LPR’s received from insured and submitted for processing.
7/8/2014 – Email received from insured by collections stating she received more LPR’s and wanted to know if they needed to be filled out.  She was advised of forms previously sent/received.
7/9/2014 – Flat Cancellation Processed
7/22/2014 – Insured notified that cancellation request has been processed and there is no balance due. Reinstatement fee was waived on RapidSure policy.
 
 
As the request has been completed and the account reflects a zero balance we are unable to provide any further resolution.
 
 
 
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.

Review: The business insurer hit my vehicle and the business agree to pay. my car ran for two days and stop. they said wait untill adjuster come out before I do anything. three days later adjuster come out and tell's me wait for claim personel decision before taking action on repairing my vehicle. next day claim personel send me e-mail that a teardown is required. I put my car in shop the adjuster was suppose to come out to readjust the car (not sure if he came out of not). two days went by and the shop call and said the insurance company said that the starter not working was not damage during accident (my car was parallel park and that after noon when I seen my car it was park on a slant part way on the curb, headlights and body damage on driver side were starter is at). so I was to pay for repairs and was told that they will pay for the body damages. my car is in the shop now and they can't finish the job because they need to buy more parts. its been a week and still no payment from the business and the rent a car place is calling me for money. when I was told that the rental was mine until my car is fix.Desired Settlement: I would like all expenses paid back to me for: rent car, starter, and possibly down payment for body parts. because i'm tried of waiting and can not move out of town with my car still here. accident happened april 9 and may 13; I have planned to move out of town by june

Business

Response:

Please see attached response to the complaint noting that the claims adjuster has been in contact with [redacted] and has attempted to resolve this loss.

[redacted], CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Review: I want to renew my fitness insurance policy which I have had with this company for several years. The policy cost is $126.06 for 1 year. They tell me I have to take the [redacted] in order to have policy which makes the policy $145.00. I do not want to [redacted] nor should I have to pay extra as I want only the policy which a I have been getting in past. This is a rip off.Desired Settlement: I should have to pay for my policy only. $126.06 and not the added cost of a [redacted] that I do not want and if I did want can get from other sources for a lot less. It is not right.

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted]

Complaint #[redacted]

Thank you for your follow up on this complaint. The company in

question has rectified the problem so there is no need for more

correspondence.

Again thank you for your prompt reply.

Review: I was walking down the sidewalk to my condo the sidewalk has damage and when I was walking I was gonna walk on it and when I stepped over it and slipped on an ice patching causing me to fall and the laptop and and tablet went flying so if they [redacted] aka as [redacted] if they would have fixed this sidewalk I wouldn't have this problem and the insurance refuses to pay for it and they been giving me the run around because they are two insurance company they are also aka as [redacted] insurance which they failed to tell they are also giving me the run aroundDesired Settlement: Want to them to pay for lose of a tablet and computer that when I slipped and fell on sisewalk and laptop went flying and cracked both screens

Business

Response:

June 24, 2014Dear **. [redacted]We are the General Liability Insurance Carrier for the location where the customer allegedly fell.The customer allegedly slipped and fell due to snow or ice on the sidewalk of his residence in January 2014 resulting in damage to two pieces of electronic equipment.Our investigation determined that a snow removal contractor was responsible for performing snow removal service upon the premises. We sent correspondence to the contractor, asking their insurance carrier to handle this claim.The insurance carrier for the snow removal company denied liability for the incident arguing that adverse winter weather conditions caused the alleged accident and not a failure of maintenance. We happen to agree with that carrier’s decision, as the weather conditions were open and obvious on the date of Complainant’s alleged fall.While we are sorry this alleged incident occurred, and that the Complainant allegedly sustained property damage to two computers, we are not liable for this loss. We have properly investigated this matter and placed the appropriate parties on notice.Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information.Sincerely,

I was in a car accident with someone that was insured by this company. After the accident the claims agent I was working with was one of the most incopetant,rude,and unhelpful person I have ever delt with. The person to come out to look at my car is still not here and they took the rental car away after five days. So again I cannot get to work and am really struggled no to pay for me and my pregnant wife's bills. I have tried contacting a supervisor but no one will call me back in regards to what is going on and how to make this process speed up and be delt with.

Review: On 6/6/14 an incident occurred in the car wash insured by this company. The initial response from the insured was to assume liability and file a claim to get the repairs taken care of. An appraiser was sent out who assessed the damages then sent an emailed estimate on 6/17/14 to provide to the repair shop who at that point ordered the parts. On 6/20/14 a letter of denial was generated to be mailed stating in summary that damages would not be covered as their client was not found to be liable. Since then I have not been able to get a return phone call from the claims rep (Jennifer N[redacted]), her supervisor (Jeff M[redacted]), nor her manager (Nancy E[redacted]) for resolution. Representatives in customer service keep directing me back to Jennifer with the promise of a callback.

I'm trying to understand why and how a claim can be closed after a company goes so far as giving a repair estimate for approval. It appears as if the honor was lost when they discovered how much it would cost. Is this legal? I'm trying to avoid seeking legal counsel in this matter and hope for human resolution.Desired Settlement: At the very least pay my deductible if I will have to file a claim with my own insurance but honor the commitment of accepted liability.

Business

Response:

July 29, 2014Dear [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

Review: Philadelphia Insurance Company, along with their representatives ([redacted], [redacted], [redacted] Insurance, [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]) continue to harm over 200 homeowners by failing to investigate clai**, denying clai** covered by the policy, underpaying clai**, forcing unnecessary legal fees, holding clai** in "open" status to blacklist and flag insured to potential new ca**iers to bid higher, refusing rights of the insured to appraisal, sending contractors onto property without authorization which coincided with malicious damage to roofs, releasing policy information which provided an unrelated third party with financial information of homeowners, sending and having unauthorized communications with vendors effectively blocking ability to obtain insurance in a regular market, etc. If each of us lived in a home, this would have been settled. However, this is big business and worth the attempts to slip something past anyone to underpay or to delay, bully & harass when the consumer doesn’t accept what PIC is willing to force feed it.

Damages in premiu** at $40k and projected to go to no less than $225 due to delays and blacklisting. Legal fees $25k minimally to date, keep running up more to harm and force lower settlement. Ins agent notified all entities and had phone conversations to effectively block from normal market and force into a surplus line…thought she could force us into a $117k policy when she realized we had another agent working for us whom secured at $65k. Have e-mails whereby tried scare tactics to keep us from going with the lower policy. New policy still had [redacted] (adjuster) attempting tactics by having company inserting a clause that stated that we must use [redacted] whom was sending random vendors and one known to have defective workmanship.Desired Settlement: Settlement of cu**ent claim to include (1)expenses for the expanded scope of work due to (A)the 2+ year delay (B) additional resulting damages to include, but not limited to, (a) labor (b)materials c)ordinance changes/upgrades (d)permits (e) inspections (f)taxes (2)bad faith (3) harm to include, but not limited to, (A)legal (B) increased premiu** for blacklisting through the use of the "open" on a loss/run (C) mediation (D) damages for utilizing the delay and non-renewal to force homeowners into a surplus market and a 300% increase (E) emotional suffering by (1)living conditions (2) fear of being bankrupted by their posturing (3) blocking the repairs without having to accept the expense vs being paid under the policy (4)bullying (5)harassing

Business

Response:

November 13, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

The purpose of this writing is The Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Philadelphia) response to you regarding the captioned clai**. This complaint relates to two clai** seeking coverage for hail and water intrusion losses under the above mentioned property policies for roof damages.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company retained various experts to assist them in performing a thorough investigation and though a limited amount of hail damage had occurred, the roof was found to be repairable without total replacement as claimed. None of the

hail damage observed could be correlated to the interior water damage but instead related to the improperly installed attic vents. Though PIIC issued payments for the damages identified, the insured continued to dispute these findings providing little to no support.

At the suggestion of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, the parties agreed to voluntary mediation. The parties have amicably settled the dispute and payments have been issued in exchange for a signed release. The ter** of the settlement are confidential at the customer’s request.

We believe that our activity in trying to assist our customer in this matter has been fully appropriated to-date.

Any action taken by us, or persons retained by us, in conjunction with an investigation of this complaint and the amount of the purported loss shall not constitute or be construed to be an admission or assumption of coverage by us under this policy, nor shall any action taken by us in any way constitute a waiver or estoppel of any of our rights under this policy and specifically our right to disclaim coverage.

Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please direct same to the undersigned at the following number and extension – ###-###-####, ext. [redacted].

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[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 Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

** is referencing clai** from 2007 to 2010 clai**. However, [redacted]'s remarks are not only inaccurate and untrue, he has breached the ter** of a confidential agreement in record time. Please forward his letter to [redacted] of [redacted], [redacted]....in [redacted], CO.

Specifically, it is about..

1. From the first claim submitted by Property Mgt company, being denied without having (1) seen issue (2) and being covered....had to quote their own policy

2. Delaying review of clai** by weeks

3. Failing to resolve in under 3 to 7 months minimally despite (1) timely bids presented (2) people displaced from their homes (3) work completed

4. insured consistently having to be reimbursed for work months after completion

5. insured having to expend considerable time and expense in bringing to resolution

6. insured's loss/runs/premiu** were artificially being held open by these delays

7. Refusal to subrogate a claim by merely conferencing with **'s legal counsel, as the HUD had told [redacted] to pay the claim. Why would a company not want to recover $75k to $80k?

8. Refuse to answer if [redacted] was also their client and chose to harm ** over [redacted]? ** had given irrfutable proof that [redacted] had caused the issue damaging 5 out of 6 units to the Philadelphia adjuster. Philadelphia claimed not to have received. ** sent to Philadelphia too. This once again artificially affected **'s loss/runs/premiu**.

9. Philadelphia's clai** adjusted told ** that if they wanted their money they would have to complete for** unfamiliar to them that are normally completed by Philadelphia's clai** adjuster and which Philadelphia had detailed in an e-mail what the clai** adjuster was to pay.

** has the e-mails illustrating the delays despite approval by Philadelphia. The loss runs illustrate clai** that were never reviewed. An insurance quote listing that ** must accept a specific clai** adjuster by a new carrier. A notation that does not exist in the actual policy and which it deemed a form of harrassment to keep it from accepting the policy and force it to a $55k increase in premium. Without ** permission, broker contacted all carriers to force ** into a surplus market; then, realized that ** had already been negotiating with a carrier for far less. The open loss runs, clai** held open months simply waiting for payment, clai** on runs not submitted by ** have greatly harmed **.

[redacted] needs to address the correct issues/clai** and inform the proper parties as to his breach.

Please provide an e-mail that I can forward a series of e-mails between Philadelphia and their clai** adjusters depicting the issues.

Regards,

Business

Response:

November 19, 2013

Dear [redacted]:

Please allow this to serve as Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s response to [redacted]’ additional comments to the extent it is able. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this response. This response will address the complaints in the order they are asserted by [redacted].

This matter involves two disputed clai** seeking coverage under two property policies issued to an HOA. [redacted] is the HOA President.

Philadelphia has not breached any agreement by its prior response indicating the parties had amicably resolved the disputed clai**. Pursuant to the request of the insured HOA, the settlement agreement between the parties provides that the ter** of the settlement are confidential however, the fact of the settlement are not.

1. Unfortunately, it is unclear exactly which claim [redacted] is referring to in paragraph 1. A review of the two clai** which are the subject of the recent settlement agreement demonstrates that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company representatives timely acknowledged the clai** and immediately began investigation of the claimed losses. No clai** have been denied without investigation; neither of the two clai** which are the subject of the settlement were denied.

2. A review of the clai** files reveals that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company timely acknowledged and investigated clai** asserted by this insured. Though it is unclear exactly what [redacted] is referring to, it is possible that she is referring to investigation of the second of the two clai** which are the subject of the settlement. This second claim was tendered shortly before a scheduled mediation of the first, earlier tendered, claim. After the mediation, the parties agreed to try to resolve both clai** as part of the settlement. Settlement negotiations took place over a matter of weeks; because negotiations were ongoing, the parties agreed to minimize costs on both sides during the negotiations, and no experts were retained by either party to further inspect the claimed loss during the negotiations.

3. The only claim filed by this insured that took a number of months to resolve is one of the clai** recently settled as part of the settlement agreement. It is unfortunate that [redacted] considers this to be a delay by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company as Philadelphia communicated with its insured every month for a year, requesting information and documents necessary to adjust the claim; during this time the insured never responded to these repeated requests and never provided the requested information. Without this information, Philadelphia was unable to proceed with the claim. Once the insured responded, the investigation immediately proceeded.

4. To its knowledge, the insured has not performed the repairs which were the subject of the recently settled clai**, so Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company cannot explain this complaint.

5. In the normal course, property clai**, particularly large, complex clai** such as that submitted by this insured, take time to investigate and then negotiate to conclusion. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company endeavors to investigate and resolve clai** as expeditiously, as possible. We regret that [redacted] was frustrated by the time and efforts necessary to fully adjust the claim.

6. Because the clai** were only recently settled, and it has taken the parties some additional time to draft and execute the appropriate settlement documents, the clai** have remained open, per industry practice. As soon as the settlement is complete, the loss runs will reflect these clai** as closed.

7. Unfortunately, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company cannot respond to paragraph 7 as the clai** tendered to it by the insured did not involve either HUD or [redacted]. Nor does Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company have any subrogation rights for these weather related clai**. The basis of this complaint is unknown and appears to be misdirected.

8. The reader is referred to the response in paragraph 7.

9. Pursuant to the ter** of the property policies issued to this insured, the insured must submit a verified Proof of Loss. This document must be prepared and submitted by the insured. Again, this is standard industry practice. We regret that [redacted] was unfamiliar with this aspect of a property policy claim.

The remaining complaints appear to relate to the insured’s recent efforts to obtain coverage through other carriers and reference complaints about actions taken by the broker. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is not responsible for the actions of the broker, has no knowledge of these actions, and cannot further respond to the complaints.

Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please direct same to the undersigned at the following number and extension - ###-###-####, ext. [redacted].

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[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 Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Philadelphia is not addressing the claims that began in 2007

for which the complaint is made:

Review: The company attempted to take payment from another company and bank account for a new account that was already paid in full. When contacted about the mistake they refused to admit fault. They refused to refund bank fees and were extremely rude during phone conversations. Very dangerous mistake they made setting up auto pay from a prior account that had been terminated for over a year and attempting to take funds. My bank proved they initiated the attempts which they stated they didn't initially then changed the story but tried to make up a reason for doing it.Desired Settlement: I want the account terminated. I want assurance that they will not ever have access to my bank accounts and I want the bounce fee my bank charged me for their mistake refunded!

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern:

[redacted], our Account Services Manager, reached out to **. [redacted] by phone. She explained the situation and apologized for the billing inconvenience caused by having his current policy attached to the same account as his prior cancelled policy. **. [redacted] was amenable to [redacted]'s solution to issue a refund check for the $29.50 NSF fee incurred due to the error. It is our belief that **. [redacted] agrees that the issue is resolved at this point. Thank you.

[redacted], CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Review: I was injured on their insureds property July 1, 2010 due to negligence of the staff who failed to supervise their clients at a juvenile drug court facility, three (3) years and ten (10) months ago and Philadelphia Claims Department has failed to settle the claim ([redacted]) resulting in a bad faith. The statute of limitations runs out on July 1, 2014. The Business is [redacted], Florida [redacted]. I have been informed that laws upheld by the insurance commission have been broken.Desired Settlement: Needs to settle personal injury claim without low balling due to negligence by insured before a lawsuit gets filed asking for punitive.

Business

Response:

May 19, 2014Dear [redacted]:We are in receipt of complaint number [redacted] submitted by [redacted]. The complaint alleges Philadelphia Insurance Companies is acting in bad faith by failing to settle her claim. We vehemently disagree by the allegations raised by [redacted].[redacted] was injured while she was driving her vehicle on our insureds’ property. [redacted] received a settlement offer via her second attorney in October 2011 for $6,500.In December 2013, [redacted] contacted Philadelphia Insurance Companies and advised that she was pursuing her claim against our insured. We advised [redacted] that our records reflect she was represented by an attorney and we could not discuss the claim with her directly as she was represented by an attorney.In January 2014, [redacted] sent us a copy of a letter from her first attorney indicating he was not pursuing a lien on this matter. We advised [redacted] we need confirmation from her second attorney (who received the settlement offer) that he was not pursuing representing her nor assertline a lien against this claim.We received confirmation from her second attorney that there was no lien. This was received on April 4, 2014; upon receipt of this information; we reinstated our settlement offer to [redacted].[redacted] claims Philadelphia Insurance Companies has “lowballed” this settlement; however [redacted] received medical benefits from her No-Fault carrier. Her out of pocket expenses are minimal.The settlement offer of $6,500 takes into account her out of pocket expenses, her prior claims history which is significant for pre-existing injuries. We have not received any type of evidence or documentation which merits reconsideration of our settlement offer. Our settlement offer reflects our genuine opinion on the value of this claim.In the event you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact the undersigned.Sincerely,

Review: I called and spoke to a representative before my policy expired. I no longer needed Philadelphia Insurance as I am signing on with a new company. I was emailed a letter of cancellation and returned electronic document along with follow up telephone calls. I received a Thank You for renewing letter anyway and follow up requests for payment. I called multiple times to tell them the policy is cancelled. I just received a notice claiming I owe them $75. for back payment on the new policy that I never signed on for. They are now finally cancelling but threatening me with a collection agency. I'm going to pay the $75. as I don't want my perfect credit scored tarnished by these thieves. I would like a refund in the amount of $75. for services I did not sign for, need or want.Desired Settlement: People should know this company threatens customers with credit scores to gain funds for unwanted service.

Business

Response:

Review: Philadelphia Insurance Companies ignored a request in March to not renew my annual policy. They proceeded to hound me over the past few months with past due notices and threats to go to collections. When I finally filled out some paperwork that they had never previously told me was required for their internal processes, I assumed the matter was closed. Then yesterday I received a notice for a bill of a "reinstatement fee." This is a scam, or certainly unseemly practices, similar to the companies that send a "free sample" with a request for a credit card number and then start charging regularly without the consumer's agreement. I most certainly did not ask to reinstate my policy, and that Philadelphia is trying to regain me as a customer by implying that I "owe" them this amount is unethical if not illegal.Desired Settlement: I have requested Philadelphia to end this process multiple times. I informed them as of the last contact that if I heard from them again I would be billing them for my time spent on this (currently 3 hours at $70/hr for my regular rate in my practice = $210), and that I would be notifying the Revdex.com if anything further occurred, regardless of their response, because other consumers should be made aware of their shady practices. This "bill" was the last straw.

Business

Response:

To Whom it May Concern,

Our representative spoke with [redacted] on July 22nd and confirmed that the cancellation has been processed effective 3/7/2014 and that there is no balance due on the account. We apologize that the policy was automatically renewed after [redacted] had advised that she did not wish to renew coverage and that the process of cancelling that policy required more effort than expected.

Below is a timeline of activity for the account.

[redacted] dba [redacted] Account: [redacted] Policies: [redacted]