Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11598631, and have determined that although they are finally moving forward with doing the right thing and settling the claim, I would like the Revdex.com to know the physical and emotional toil having to literally fight with this company to get them to do the right thing has had on my entire family Just because, like myself, I had never heard of this particular type of theft/vandalism happening, they made me literally jump through hoops to show/prove to them that this actually happened I wouldn't have been as persistent as I was if indeed this wasn't the case Hopefully, this will be forwarded to them and they will use this as a learning tool and act/behave in a more professional manner in the future I wouldn't want anyone else to go through what I have.Thank you, [redacted]

While we are aware that the providing of documentation to adequately document an insured's claim may sometimes be inconvenient and problematic, it is necessary in the handling of any type of lossWe are happy that the insured was able to document her loss and we were able to provide the coverage for her under her policy of insurance

I have issued a response to the complaint I received on 10/22/I did not receive an email regarding the first notice on 10/14/Below is my response as I was unable to populate the response on the website On 9/26/we received notice from the insured’s agent that the insured suffered
a power surge loss to her contents in her homeThe insured was contacted that same day and advised that several items in her home had damage from a power surge when the power was cut off and then returned during a stormThe adjuster explained the procedures and items required by the insured to process the claim for her damaged items The insured was to get a diagnosis of damages and repair estimates for her larger items and list out the smaller items so that we could proceed with the handling of her loss. On 10/06/the insured’s agent called and advised that the insured has suffered damage from a water back up lossApparently her sump pump was also damaged from her previous power surge lossThe agent asked the handling adjuster if this would be covered under her previous claimThe adjuster did advise the agent that this would be covered under the previous loss but did not advise the agent that the insured did not carry coverage for the backup of sewer and drainsThe agent thinking that there was coverage for not only the sump pump but also the damage caused by the backup of water called a contractor to start the remediation of the insured’s water damageWhen the adjuster found out that the remediation had started he checked to see if the insured carried the endorsements that would grant coverage for this event and found noneThe adjuster then called the insured and agent and advised them of no coverage for this event After the insured sent in her complaint to DIFS the file was reviewed and it was decided that the agent and adjuster had miscommunicated with each other and that had caused the insured expense that may or may not have been still incurred by the insured to rectify her water damage issues. Since the insured was given incorrect information regarding her coverages it was decided that the insurance company would pay for any water damage remediation costs to date that was incurred and also pay for any damages that were caused from the inaction of the contractor after they found out the insurance company was not paying for the water damages and stopped workThere would still not be any coverage for the reconstruction to the home that was caused by the water damage and any mold remediation would be capped at the policy limit of $10, At this time the insured seems satisfied with the decisions of the insurance company and we feel that this issue has now been rectified. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter please feel free to contact me at *** *** *** *** *** *** Assistant Director of Claims Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company NElms RdFlint, MI phone/fax ***

On August 22, Fekete, Knaggs & Burr Agency submitted an auto policy providing coverage for a Ford *** and a Ford ***The signed application indicated there were no other household members other than insured and no other drivers using either of the
vehicles listed on this policyDuring the investigation of the 11/10/loss involving the Ford, *** *** in a recorded statement stated she has lived in your home since August and has had use of the Ford.Since misrepresentation was made on the application for insurance which materially affected the premium of this risk, we rescinded coverage back to the effective date of this policy which is 08/25/A premium refund was sent back to the insuredWe then denied the claim since the policy was rescinded due to misrepresentations by the insured.12:a.mon August 25,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11598631, and have determined that although they are finally moving forward with doing the right thing and settling the claim, I would like the Revdex.com to know the physical and emotional toil having to literally fight with this company to get them to do the right thing has had on my entire family.  Just because, like myself, I had never heard of this particular type of theft/vandalism happening, they made me literally jump through hoops to show/prove to them that this actually happened.  I wouldn't have been as persistent as I was if indeed this wasn't the case.  Hopefully, this will be forwarded to them and they will use this as a learning tool and act/behave in a more professional manner in the future.  I wouldn't want anyone else to go through what I have.Thank you,[redacted]

1) The complaint appears to center on Pioneer State Mutual refusal to offer a replacement cost insurance policy for the property owned by Kristy Watkins and Williams Watkins.2) The application that the insured submitted for coverge effective 10-20-2016 stated that the Watkins purchased this home...

located at 600 7th Street Jackson in 2006 for $140,000. Public records show that the Watkins purchased this home on September 29, 2009 for $28,000. The application requested a Replacement Cost of $175,000.3) The current Assessed value of this property is $26,300 and current Taxable value of the property is $24,924 and State Equalized Value is $26,300.4) Current Market values in the area indicate a market value around $70,000.5) In order for a home to qualify for a replacement cost policy the Market Value must be at least 50% of replacement cost. In this case the market value of the insureds home does not meet the 50% requirement and is not eligible for a policy at replacement cost. These rules are filed with the State of Michigan. Our Assistant Director of underwriting will contact the inured and go over these rules with her.

On 07/05/16 we received a notice of loss that the insured's air conditioning unit was not working since 06/07/16 and that a friend of hers told her it was vandalized. Inspection of the unit by the adjuster showed no obvious sings of being vandalized. We asked the insured to have a...

technician look at the unit and write a repair order and state the cause of the damages. That report was received in our office on 07/26/16. The adjuster on the file had some questions regarding the report since it was not clear on the cause of loss. The repair technician spoke with the adjuster yesterday and verified that the cause of loss was theft of Freon and vandalism . The adjuster has approved replacement of the unit. The amount of the estimate for replacement was 3600.00. We have sent a check to the insured for $3600.00 less her $1000.00 = $2600.00We also will be sending a second check for the diagnostic bill for $80.00. This will now settle the loss and we will be closing out our file. [redacted]Assistant Director of Claims.