Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/12/22) */ Our records show that the statement was accepted, the policy was indeed cancelled and a refund check of $was generatedThe cancellation notice was sent but then was returned to GeoVeraWe called the agent to get an updated address so the same thing would not happen to the refund checkThe agent responded with the following address: PO BOX [redacted] XXXXX-XXXX On December 21, 2015, the refund check was mailed to this address We apologize for any confusion and trust the refund check will arrive shortly and the matter will be closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 10, 2015/12/31) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: most of what they say is contradicted by another statement made by other people in the company for example the skylights issue first they say the received that information from the insurance agent [redacted] then at the end say they don't have it in there files They are able to quote the emails but somehow don't have the information I have provided them directly or thru the agent all the information and they still say they don't have even after stating they got it from the agent as for the depreciation I was told in an email that if I spent less on the replacement that the amount would be adjusted only after did they change the wording to say it had to be more than I spent and if they had taken into consideration what I had to pay extra for in the skylights it would have been more than what they have claimed the skylights are integrated part of the roof and as explained by the contractors that did the roof they are like any other part of the roof system that when the roof is removed and replaced that if the skylights are not also replaced they could leak due to the way everything is interconnected the roof shingles and lights become one part of the roof you wouldn't keep the old ridge vents and reuse them on a new roof even if they are not damaged as it would or could cause a problem the same thing with the lights I gave them all that information and they even stated they got it from my agent as well then say they don't have it this is just another way to deny it isn't part of the roof that they forgot to include in the estimate they made and even told me the adjuster never mentioned them my point to them was the adjuster never mentioned the roof vents but they were replace none the less and since the adjuster did nothing more than take photos and measure all to get the cost of a shingle replacement I asked when I got their estimate about the skylights and sent them everything but of course they ignored it or threw it away because they had already made their decision and closed the claim so now I have to jump threw the same hoops I already have and still get the same run around if they want to resolve this pay me for the skylights like they should have from the beginning I spend $to have the skylights replaced during the rior replacement and I am just told too bad if they had included them I would be well over the amount they said I would have needed to spend to get any of their phony depreciation cost back so what will be their excuse this time sorry to late or that I still have not done enough to warrant any additional payment either for the cost of the skylights or from the depreciation Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/11/18) */ This letter will serve as our response to the Revdex.com Complaint XXXXXXXXAs this complaint was also reported to the South Carolina Department of Insurance I have attached a copy of that response which should address your concerns as well November 17, South Carolina Department of Insurance P.OBox XXXXXX Columbia, SC XXXXX Attn [redacted] RE: Insured: [redacted] Date of Loss: September 24, 2015/0ctober 4, Date Reported: September 25, 2015/0ctober 5, Type of Loss: Wind/Water Claim Number: FG XXXXXXXX / FG XXXXXXXX SC DOI Document XXXXXX NAIC #:XXXXX Dear Mr [redacted] , This letter will serve as our formal response to the South Carolina Department of Insurance assistance request XXXXXXPlease be advised we are handling this claim and responding to your inquiry on behalf of Geo Vera Specialty Insurance Company As this complaint involves two separate claims I will address them individually below FIRST CLAIM - FG XXXXXXXX This loss was initially reported to us on September 25, as a wind loss having occurred the prior dayThe insured was called that same day and a voice mail was left Due to the nature of the claim it was felt that an inspection of the property was needed so we engaged the services of Choice One Solutions to perform a physical inspection and assist us in evaluating the loss as to the cause and extent of the damages We were finally able to speak with the insured on September 28, The insured advised that the roof was damaged by a storm on September 24, and that the roof leaked in the living room, dining room, den and bedroomThe insured also stated that the Choice One adjuster had already inspected her homeWe explained the claim process and reviewed the policy coverage with Ms [redacted] including advising her of the $1,others perils deductible and the $14,wind/hail deductible on the policy On October 5, the insured called our afterhours reporting service stating that a ceiling fell in a bedroom due to additional rainfallMs [redacted] would not confirm with us if it was new damage or in an area already damaged A new claim (FGXXXXXXXX) was set up with an October 4, date of loss and will be discussed separately below On October 6, we called the insured and advised her we needed to determine if the damages from this second event should be handled under her initial claim or if they should be subject to a separate claimThe insured advised that the damages from October 4, event were in the same area as the initial claimWe advised that we would need to review the field adjuster's reports to confirm We received the Choice One report on October 14, The report indicated that the roof inspection revealed wind damage throughout the entirety of the roof with many missing shingles notedIt was indicated to them by the insured that a tornado had passed [redacted] five miles of the insured's property (Charleston news reports confirmed an EF-tornado in the early morning hours of September 25, 2015.) The Choice One Adjuster also noted hail impacts to the soft metals on the roof and that the shingles were old and wornThe report recommended a roof replacement and noted water damage to the ceilings in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms 1,and and hallwayThe damage was estimated to be $12,which was less than the insured's windstorm/hail deductible of $14, A letter was sent to the insured on October 22, explaining that the damages were less than her deductible and we would be closing our file On October 29, we received an email from Ms [redacted] asking about the process for disputing the findings and cause of this claimShe stated in her email that there was no windstorm in [redacted] on this date We responded to the insured's email on October 30, advising her via email that our inspection of her roof revealed wind damaged shingles in the form of numerous missing shinglesWe also pointed out the Choice Solutions adjuster reported that she told him a tornado had passed [redacted] the area with strong wind gustsAdditionally, we advised her that the photos taken by the Choice Solutions adjuster supported that the roof had been damaged by windI have attached some of these photos for your reviewWe then asked the insured that if she did not believe this to be wind damage, what she thinks would have caused this damageWe asked Ms [redacted] to submit any documentation she might have to support another cause of loss but to date have not heard back from the insured SECOND CLAIM - FGXXXXXXXX As stated above we were initially advised of this claim on October 5, Due to the nature of the claim it was felt that a re-inspection of the property was needed so we again engaged the services of Choice One Solutions to assist us in evaluating the loss as to cause and extent of damages On October 5, we spoke to the insured who advised that there was no damage to her home from wind or hail We spoke to the insured on October 6, and advised her that we had not received the Choice Solutions report yetMs [redacted] stated that the adjuster had called her and advised that he could not inspect due to flooding On October 13, 2015, the insured called and spoke with our Claims Manager indicating that she was upset that the Choice Solution adjuster had not re- inspected yetOur Claim Manager stated that flood waters in her area may have receded, but maybe not othersWe advised that we would contact the Choice Solution adjuster for herThe insured was also upset about her $14,windstorm/hail deductibleWe explained to her that if her roof was damaged from wind and/ or hail, then that deductible would applyMs [redacted] stated that the roof was not damagedWe advised that if the roof was leaking simply from the large amount of rain received, then the $1,deductible would applyMs [redacted] then advised that the roof was damaged but not from wind or hail but by rainWe explained that rain cannot damage a roofMs [redacted] then stated that the roof was damaged by wear and tearWe then advised in that scenario the roof would not be covered at all, only the interior water damageShe was not happy with this explanation either and we explained to her that the policy would respond only for direct physical damage and that if the roof was simply old and in need of replacing, the policy would not pay for that The re-inspection done by Choice Solutions revealed that there was no additional roof damage not noted from the initial claimThe interior inspection noted that the ceilings were damaged in the master bedroom and bathroom and those were not in evidence from the initial claimThe damages in bedroom number three were noted to have worsened and the ceiling had collapsed and damaged a sofaTo give the insured the benefit of the doubt we afforded coverage for the sofa and attributed it to a roof leak since the leak was located in an area below the wind damage on the roofThis way we could give her the benefit of here lower $1,other perils deductible and be able to pay her something for this second lossA check was issued to the insured based on the estimate of $2,102.03, less the $1,deductible for a net settlement for the dwelling of $1,In addition we allowed $for the damaged sofaPayments were issued on October 22, On October 23, the insured called and advised that she did not want us to pay this claim at this time as she was talking to people and getting adviceWe informed her that we were required to pay this claim unless she wanted to withdraw itWe asked her at this time to let us know if that was what she wanted to doSince that time we have not heard from her as to her decisionThe estimate of the damages from the initial claim is $12,If we had added the estimate of the second claim of $2,and $138.79, the damages would have added up to $14,and would have still been less than her windstorm/hail deductibleBy paying the damage from October4, under the second claim, we were able to give the insured $1,There would have been no money due if we had handled this as one claim The insured's complaint states we denied the claim to repair her homeThat is not the caseIt was covered, but less than the applicable policy deductibleThe check we sent her was not based on Sl4,worth of damages as her complaint states, but rather based on the damages from the second claim of $2,As you can see we have been fair with the insured and have strived to give her the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of the most coverage throughout the handling of her claimAs to her comments directed to her agent I would point out that they are not agents of Geo Vera Specialty Insurance but rather represent the insured as agents of the insured
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/01/05) */ What follows is a high level summary of events regarding changes and communication on Mr [redacted] 's policy On December 10, 2015, Mr [redacted] 's insurance agent called GeoVera and stated that Mr [redacted] had made changes to the "Request Changes to Property Details" form removing items but the coverage/premium increasedGeoVera advised the agent that the form also included some additionsThe agent was also advised that a reduction in coverage form was availableA copy of the Amended Declarations and an Insured Request to Reduce Coverage Limit form were emailed to the agent On December 22, 2015, GeoVera received a signed Insured Request to Reduce Coverage Limit formThe reduction in coverage limit was being processed, but not completed due to Mr [redacted] requesting that his policy be cancelled On December 23, GeoVera reached out to Mr [redacted] 's agent to confirm that Mr [redacted] would like to cancel his policyThe agent confirmed that Mr [redacted] does not wish to have a policy with GeoVeraOn that same date, a cancellation letter was sent to Mr [redacted] notifying him of the cancellation of his policy effective November 30, On December 28, GeoVera sent Mr [redacted] a premium refund check in the amount of $ We trust that the cancellation of the policy and the generation of the premium refund check resolves the matter Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 10, 2016/01/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I did receive a full refund from GeoVera and this resolves the issue
Policyholder: [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Number: [redacted] Date of Loss: February 7, Type of Loss: Wind To Whom it May Concern: We initi [redacted] received this claim on February 8, with a cause of loss listed as windThe loss description advised that during the storms overnight of February 7, the wind had caused damage to several shingles and the ridge cap on the roof Given the nature and extent of the damages we felt an inspection of the property was warranted We assigned the inspection to [redacted] ) to assist in determining the cause and extent of the damages The [redacted] inspection of the property took place on February 14, and the report was received in our office on February 16, We reviewed the [redacted] report on February 17, The report indicated that the inspection had found wind damage to the roof warranting replacement On February 23, an actual cash value payment of $6,was issued based on the [redacted] adjuster’s estimate of $12,859.58, less recoverable depreciation in the amount of $2,and application of the insured’s windstorm/hail deductible of $4, A settlement letter that also explained the recoverable depreciation and how to make a claim for it was sent at this time On February 28, Mr [redacted] called the [redacted] adjuster advising that he had sent two estimates to himWe returned a call to both Mrand Mrs [redacted] on February 28, and left a message advising that a copy of our adjuster’s estimate was on the way to them and that we would only need a copy of their contractor’s estimate if it exceeded the [redacted] estimateAddition***, we advised that they would need to select a contractor prior to submitting estimates to us and to notify us prior to the start of repairs if their contractor’s estimate exceeded ours We received a call from Mr [redacted] on March 1, questioning the application of the $4,deductibleWe advised that per the policy, the windstorm/hail deductible was $4,and the Section I deductible is $1,We further advised that the claims department could not change the deductible and he would need to speak to his agent to change his deductible for future lossesMr [redacted] explained that his agent stated to him that he only had a $1,deductibleWe advised that the windstorm/hail deductible applied to any loss due to wind or hailMr [redacted] questioned why the deductible was so high and we advised again that he contact his agentWe then also advised Mr [redacted] to review his policy documents where it lists the Section I and Windstorm/Hail deductibles On March 2, we took a call from the insured’s agent’s office from ***, who confirmed the windstorm hail deductibleWe explained to [redacted] that the damage to the insured’s property was due to wind On March 7, we received a call from the insured’s agent, [redacted] ***, who advised that the insured was requesting a supplement for the skylightsWe advised the agent that we would need a request for the supplement in writing from the insured which the agent understood On March 16, the insured’s agent, Mr***, forwarded an email to us from Mr [redacted] regarding the skylightsInitially, it appears Mr [redacted] had been communicating with his agent Mr [redacted] wrote an email to his agent, Mr [redacted] on March 2, with a copy of our estimateMr [redacted] expressed frustration with our application of depreciation and the application of his deductible Mr [redacted] reached out to us via email for an explanation of the depreciation applied on March 2, We replied on March 18, advising that depreciation applied to all items that are being replaced based on the age and condition of the existing item(s) or buildingThe depreciation would be recoverable after repairs or replacement had been completed and we received the final invoice for the repairsWe advised that the recoverable depreciation would be based on the cost incurred and elaborated specific [redacted] that if the repairs were completed for less than what was estimated, there was a possibility there would be no additional payment for depreciationWe further advised that the roof had been damaged by wind and because of this the windstorm/hail deductible applied We received a separate email from Mr [redacted] on March 16, regarding the skylightsThe email included a forwarded message from Mr [redacted] to the agent on March 15, in response to Mr [redacted] advising the insured that we would need the supplement request for the skylight in writingMr [redacted] expressed frustration with the length of time it took to get a response and the fact that we were asking his contractor to provide the same explanation that he had previously providedWe responded to Mr***’s email advising that there had been no storm related damage found to the skylight and that if the contractor was stating that the skylight needed replacement due to wear and tear, then this would not covered and faulty construction would be excluded as well On April 3, we requested a category breakdown summary from the [redacted] adjuster and sent a copy to Mr [redacted] and Mr [redacted] per Mr [redacted] requestWe advised that we would need a detailed copy of his contractor’s estimate if there were any discrepancies to allow us to review Mr [redacted] responded to our April 3, email on the same date and questioned the cost breakdown of the estimate as well as the depreciation We responded to Mr [redacted] via email on April 4, In our email, we clarified the cost breakdown Mr [redacted] was interpretingWe also provided clarification on the application of depreciation and the deductibleWith regard to the deductible, we advised that any loss caused by wind or hail was subject to the windstorm/hail deductible and that a loss caused by anything other than wind or hail would be subject to the all other perils deductible Mr [redacted] replied via email on the same date inquiring that if replaced the roof, would he be paid the amount of recoverable depreciation that was withheld The insured further asked who to send that information to We responded via email on April 5, clarifying that once the roof was replaced, and they had incurred the replacement cost, a claim for recoverable depreciation could be madeWe continued with examples of replacement cost totals and how they would affect the amount recoverable if incurredWe also attached a copy of our settlement letter from February 24, that explained the recoverable depreciation and how to make a claim for it On July 2, Mr [redacted] submitted his final invoice for the replacement of the roof totaling $9,His email indicated that he was expecting payment for depreciation based on the amount he spent per his understanding of recoverable depreciation The [redacted] adjuster, Mr [redacted] , was enlisted to review the insured’s recoverable depreciation claim and respond to Mr***Mr [redacted] correctly identified that Mr [redacted] spent less to repair his roof than the Actual Cash Value of the loss that had already been paid, and therefore no payment for depreciation was dueThis was communicated to Mr [redacted] via email on July 10, This prompted Mr [redacted] to send an email outlining his disagreement with our handling of the claim as well as the multiple answer’s he claimed to have received over the course of the claim We responded via email to Mr [redacted] email on July 12, addressing his concerns as to the depreciation, deductible and the skylightsWe offered to send a copy of his policy and provided contact information for further follow upWe further requested he provide us with the documentation for the skylights as they are not in our claim file At this point we are awaiting the requested information from the insured We hope our actions and efforts satisfactorily answer your inquiry If additional information is needed please feel free to contact our office Sincerely, [redacted] Vice President, Marketing
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/12/22) */ Our records show that the statement was accepted, the policy was indeed cancelled and a refund check of $was generatedThe cancellation notice was sent but then was returned to GeoVeraWe called the agent to get an updated address so the same thing would not happen to the refund checkThe agent responded with the following address: PO BOX [redacted] XXXXX-XXXX On December 21, 2015, the refund check was mailed to this address We apologize for any confusion and trust the refund check will arrive shortly and the matter will be closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 10, 2015/12/31) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: most of what they say is contradicted by another statement made by other people in the company for example the skylights issue first they say the received that information from the insurance agent [redacted] then at the end say they don't have it in there files They are able to quote the emails but somehow don't have the information I have provided them directly or thru the agent all the information and they still say they don't have even after stating they got it from the agent as for the depreciation I was told in an email that if I spent less on the replacement that the amount would be adjusted only after did they change the wording to say it had to be more than I spent and if they had taken into consideration what I had to pay extra for in the skylights it would have been more than what they have claimed the skylights are integrated part of the roof and as explained by the contractors that did the roof they are like any other part of the roof system that when the roof is removed and replaced that if the skylights are not also replaced they could leak due to the way everything is interconnected the roof shingles and lights become one part of the roof you wouldn't keep the old ridge vents and reuse them on a new roof even if they are not damaged as it would or could cause a problem the same thing with the lights I gave them all that information and they even stated they got it from my agent as well then say they don't have it this is just another way to deny it isn't part of the roof that they forgot to include in the estimate they made and even told me the adjuster never mentioned them my point to them was the adjuster never mentioned the roof vents but they were replace none the less and since the adjuster did nothing more than take photos and measure all to get the cost of a shingle replacement I asked when I got their estimate about the skylights and sent them everything but of course they ignored it or threw it away because they had already made their decision and closed the claim so now I have to jump threw the same hoops I already have and still get the same run around if they want to resolve this pay me for the skylights like they should have from the beginning I spend $to have the skylights replaced during the rior replacement and I am just told too bad if they had included them I would be well over the amount they said I would have needed to spend to get any of their phony depreciation cost back so what will be their excuse this time sorry to late or that I still have not done enough to warrant any additional payment either for the cost of the skylights or from the depreciation Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/11/18) */ This letter will serve as our response to the Revdex.com Complaint XXXXXXXXAs this complaint was also reported to the South Carolina Department of Insurance I have attached a copy of that response which should address your concerns as well November 17, South Carolina Department of Insurance P.OBox XXXXXX Columbia, SC XXXXX Attn [redacted] RE: Insured: [redacted] Date of Loss: September 24, 2015/0ctober 4, Date Reported: September 25, 2015/0ctober 5, Type of Loss: Wind/Water Claim Number: FG XXXXXXXX / FG XXXXXXXX SC DOI Document XXXXXX NAIC #:XXXXX Dear Mr [redacted] , This letter will serve as our formal response to the South Carolina Department of Insurance assistance request XXXXXXPlease be advised we are handling this claim and responding to your inquiry on behalf of Geo Vera Specialty Insurance Company As this complaint involves two separate claims I will address them individually below FIRST CLAIM - FG XXXXXXXX This loss was initially reported to us on September 25, as a wind loss having occurred the prior dayThe insured was called that same day and a voice mail was left Due to the nature of the claim it was felt that an inspection of the property was needed so we engaged the services of Choice One Solutions to perform a physical inspection and assist us in evaluating the loss as to the cause and extent of the damages We were finally able to speak with the insured on September 28, The insured advised that the roof was damaged by a storm on September 24, and that the roof leaked in the living room, dining room, den and bedroomThe insured also stated that the Choice One adjuster had already inspected her homeWe explained the claim process and reviewed the policy coverage with Ms [redacted] including advising her of the $1,others perils deductible and the $14,wind/hail deductible on the policy On October 5, the insured called our afterhours reporting service stating that a ceiling fell in a bedroom due to additional rainfallMs [redacted] would not confirm with us if it was new damage or in an area already damaged A new claim (FGXXXXXXXX) was set up with an October 4, date of loss and will be discussed separately below On October 6, we called the insured and advised her we needed to determine if the damages from this second event should be handled under her initial claim or if they should be subject to a separate claimThe insured advised that the damages from October 4, event were in the same area as the initial claimWe advised that we would need to review the field adjuster's reports to confirm We received the Choice One report on October 14, The report indicated that the roof inspection revealed wind damage throughout the entirety of the roof with many missing shingles notedIt was indicated to them by the insured that a tornado had passed [redacted] five miles of the insured's property (Charleston news reports confirmed an EF-tornado in the early morning hours of September 25, 2015.) The Choice One Adjuster also noted hail impacts to the soft metals on the roof and that the shingles were old and wornThe report recommended a roof replacement and noted water damage to the ceilings in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms 1,and and hallwayThe damage was estimated to be $12,which was less than the insured's windstorm/hail deductible of $14, A letter was sent to the insured on October 22, explaining that the damages were less than her deductible and we would be closing our file On October 29, we received an email from Ms [redacted] asking about the process for disputing the findings and cause of this claimShe stated in her email that there was no windstorm in [redacted] on this date We responded to the insured's email on October 30, advising her via email that our inspection of her roof revealed wind damaged shingles in the form of numerous missing shinglesWe also pointed out the Choice Solutions adjuster reported that she told him a tornado had passed [redacted] the area with strong wind gustsAdditionally, we advised her that the photos taken by the Choice Solutions adjuster supported that the roof had been damaged by windI have attached some of these photos for your reviewWe then asked the insured that if she did not believe this to be wind damage, what she thinks would have caused this damageWe asked Ms [redacted] to submit any documentation she might have to support another cause of loss but to date have not heard back from the insured SECOND CLAIM - FGXXXXXXXX As stated above we were initially advised of this claim on October 5, Due to the nature of the claim it was felt that a re-inspection of the property was needed so we again engaged the services of Choice One Solutions to assist us in evaluating the loss as to cause and extent of damages On October 5, we spoke to the insured who advised that there was no damage to her home from wind or hail We spoke to the insured on October 6, and advised her that we had not received the Choice Solutions report yetMs [redacted] stated that the adjuster had called her and advised that he could not inspect due to flooding On October 13, 2015, the insured called and spoke with our Claims Manager indicating that she was upset that the Choice Solution adjuster had not re- inspected yetOur Claim Manager stated that flood waters in her area may have receded, but maybe not othersWe advised that we would contact the Choice Solution adjuster for herThe insured was also upset about her $14,windstorm/hail deductibleWe explained to her that if her roof was damaged from wind and/ or hail, then that deductible would applyMs [redacted] stated that the roof was not damagedWe advised that if the roof was leaking simply from the large amount of rain received, then the $1,deductible would applyMs [redacted] then advised that the roof was damaged but not from wind or hail but by rainWe explained that rain cannot damage a roofMs [redacted] then stated that the roof was damaged by wear and tearWe then advised in that scenario the roof would not be covered at all, only the interior water damageShe was not happy with this explanation either and we explained to her that the policy would respond only for direct physical damage and that if the roof was simply old and in need of replacing, the policy would not pay for that The re-inspection done by Choice Solutions revealed that there was no additional roof damage not noted from the initial claimThe interior inspection noted that the ceilings were damaged in the master bedroom and bathroom and those were not in evidence from the initial claimThe damages in bedroom number three were noted to have worsened and the ceiling had collapsed and damaged a sofaTo give the insured the benefit of the doubt we afforded coverage for the sofa and attributed it to a roof leak since the leak was located in an area below the wind damage on the roofThis way we could give her the benefit of here lower $1,other perils deductible and be able to pay her something for this second lossA check was issued to the insured based on the estimate of $2,102.03, less the $1,deductible for a net settlement for the dwelling of $1,In addition we allowed $for the damaged sofaPayments were issued on October 22, On October 23, the insured called and advised that she did not want us to pay this claim at this time as she was talking to people and getting adviceWe informed her that we were required to pay this claim unless she wanted to withdraw itWe asked her at this time to let us know if that was what she wanted to doSince that time we have not heard from her as to her decisionThe estimate of the damages from the initial claim is $12,If we had added the estimate of the second claim of $2,and $138.79, the damages would have added up to $14,and would have still been less than her windstorm/hail deductibleBy paying the damage from October4, under the second claim, we were able to give the insured $1,There would have been no money due if we had handled this as one claim The insured's complaint states we denied the claim to repair her homeThat is not the caseIt was covered, but less than the applicable policy deductibleThe check we sent her was not based on Sl4,worth of damages as her complaint states, but rather based on the damages from the second claim of $2,As you can see we have been fair with the insured and have strived to give her the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of the most coverage throughout the handling of her claimAs to her comments directed to her agent I would point out that they are not agents of Geo Vera Specialty Insurance but rather represent the insured as agents of the insured
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2016/01/05) */ What follows is a high level summary of events regarding changes and communication on Mr [redacted] 's policy On December 10, 2015, Mr [redacted] 's insurance agent called GeoVera and stated that Mr [redacted] had made changes to the "Request Changes to Property Details" form removing items but the coverage/premium increasedGeoVera advised the agent that the form also included some additionsThe agent was also advised that a reduction in coverage form was availableA copy of the Amended Declarations and an Insured Request to Reduce Coverage Limit form were emailed to the agent On December 22, 2015, GeoVera received a signed Insured Request to Reduce Coverage Limit formThe reduction in coverage limit was being processed, but not completed due to Mr [redacted] requesting that his policy be cancelled On December 23, GeoVera reached out to Mr [redacted] 's agent to confirm that Mr [redacted] would like to cancel his policyThe agent confirmed that Mr [redacted] does not wish to have a policy with GeoVeraOn that same date, a cancellation letter was sent to Mr [redacted] notifying him of the cancellation of his policy effective November 30, On December 28, GeoVera sent Mr [redacted] a premium refund check in the amount of $ We trust that the cancellation of the policy and the generation of the premium refund check resolves the matter Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 10, 2016/01/06) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I did receive a full refund from GeoVera and this resolves the issue
Policyholder: [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Number: [redacted] Date of Loss: February 7, Type of Loss: Wind To Whom it May Concern: We initi [redacted] received this claim on February 8, with a cause of loss listed as windThe loss description advised that during the storms overnight of February 7, the wind had caused damage to several shingles and the ridge cap on the roof Given the nature and extent of the damages we felt an inspection of the property was warranted We assigned the inspection to [redacted] ) to assist in determining the cause and extent of the damages The [redacted] inspection of the property took place on February 14, and the report was received in our office on February 16, We reviewed the [redacted] report on February 17, The report indicated that the inspection had found wind damage to the roof warranting replacement On February 23, an actual cash value payment of $6,was issued based on the [redacted] adjuster’s estimate of $12,859.58, less recoverable depreciation in the amount of $2,and application of the insured’s windstorm/hail deductible of $4, A settlement letter that also explained the recoverable depreciation and how to make a claim for it was sent at this time On February 28, Mr [redacted] called the [redacted] adjuster advising that he had sent two estimates to himWe returned a call to both Mrand Mrs [redacted] on February 28, and left a message advising that a copy of our adjuster’s estimate was on the way to them and that we would only need a copy of their contractor’s estimate if it exceeded the [redacted] estimateAddition***, we advised that they would need to select a contractor prior to submitting estimates to us and to notify us prior to the start of repairs if their contractor’s estimate exceeded ours We received a call from Mr [redacted] on March 1, questioning the application of the $4,deductibleWe advised that per the policy, the windstorm/hail deductible was $4,and the Section I deductible is $1,We further advised that the claims department could not change the deductible and he would need to speak to his agent to change his deductible for future lossesMr [redacted] explained that his agent stated to him that he only had a $1,deductibleWe advised that the windstorm/hail deductible applied to any loss due to wind or hailMr [redacted] questioned why the deductible was so high and we advised again that he contact his agentWe then also advised Mr [redacted] to review his policy documents where it lists the Section I and Windstorm/Hail deductibles On March 2, we took a call from the insured’s agent’s office from ***, who confirmed the windstorm hail deductibleWe explained to [redacted] that the damage to the insured’s property was due to wind On March 7, we received a call from the insured’s agent, [redacted] ***, who advised that the insured was requesting a supplement for the skylightsWe advised the agent that we would need a request for the supplement in writing from the insured which the agent understood On March 16, the insured’s agent, Mr***, forwarded an email to us from Mr [redacted] regarding the skylightsInitially, it appears Mr [redacted] had been communicating with his agent Mr [redacted] wrote an email to his agent, Mr [redacted] on March 2, with a copy of our estimateMr [redacted] expressed frustration with our application of depreciation and the application of his deductible Mr [redacted] reached out to us via email for an explanation of the depreciation applied on March 2, We replied on March 18, advising that depreciation applied to all items that are being replaced based on the age and condition of the existing item(s) or buildingThe depreciation would be recoverable after repairs or replacement had been completed and we received the final invoice for the repairsWe advised that the recoverable depreciation would be based on the cost incurred and elaborated specific [redacted] that if the repairs were completed for less than what was estimated, there was a possibility there would be no additional payment for depreciationWe further advised that the roof had been damaged by wind and because of this the windstorm/hail deductible applied We received a separate email from Mr [redacted] on March 16, regarding the skylightsThe email included a forwarded message from Mr [redacted] to the agent on March 15, in response to Mr [redacted] advising the insured that we would need the supplement request for the skylight in writingMr [redacted] expressed frustration with the length of time it took to get a response and the fact that we were asking his contractor to provide the same explanation that he had previously providedWe responded to Mr***’s email advising that there had been no storm related damage found to the skylight and that if the contractor was stating that the skylight needed replacement due to wear and tear, then this would not covered and faulty construction would be excluded as well On April 3, we requested a category breakdown summary from the [redacted] adjuster and sent a copy to Mr [redacted] and Mr [redacted] per Mr [redacted] requestWe advised that we would need a detailed copy of his contractor’s estimate if there were any discrepancies to allow us to review Mr [redacted] responded to our April 3, email on the same date and questioned the cost breakdown of the estimate as well as the depreciation We responded to Mr [redacted] via email on April 4, In our email, we clarified the cost breakdown Mr [redacted] was interpretingWe also provided clarification on the application of depreciation and the deductibleWith regard to the deductible, we advised that any loss caused by wind or hail was subject to the windstorm/hail deductible and that a loss caused by anything other than wind or hail would be subject to the all other perils deductible Mr [redacted] replied via email on the same date inquiring that if replaced the roof, would he be paid the amount of recoverable depreciation that was withheld The insured further asked who to send that information to We responded via email on April 5, clarifying that once the roof was replaced, and they had incurred the replacement cost, a claim for recoverable depreciation could be madeWe continued with examples of replacement cost totals and how they would affect the amount recoverable if incurredWe also attached a copy of our settlement letter from February 24, that explained the recoverable depreciation and how to make a claim for it On July 2, Mr [redacted] submitted his final invoice for the replacement of the roof totaling $9,His email indicated that he was expecting payment for depreciation based on the amount he spent per his understanding of recoverable depreciation The [redacted] adjuster, Mr [redacted] , was enlisted to review the insured’s recoverable depreciation claim and respond to Mr***Mr [redacted] correctly identified that Mr [redacted] spent less to repair his roof than the Actual Cash Value of the loss that had already been paid, and therefore no payment for depreciation was dueThis was communicated to Mr [redacted] via email on July 10, This prompted Mr [redacted] to send an email outlining his disagreement with our handling of the claim as well as the multiple answer’s he claimed to have received over the course of the claim We responded via email to Mr [redacted] email on July 12, addressing his concerns as to the depreciation, deductible and the skylightsWe offered to send a copy of his policy and provided contact information for further follow upWe further requested he provide us with the documentation for the skylights as they are not in our claim file At this point we are awaiting the requested information from the insured We hope our actions and efforts satisfactorily answer your inquiry If additional information is needed please feel free to contact our office Sincerely, [redacted] Vice President, Marketing