Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation

I am writing in response to follRevdex.com complaint number [redacted] received on December 7, The prior response provided was a simple overview of the claimA representative of the company has spoken with the claimant and they consider the matter closed

The customer has also filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance Our response to the Division of Insurance will contain a more detailed explanation of the premium adjustment that resulted from the customer’s requested policy change The Division of Insurance complaint process is a more appropriate venue for addressing questions about insurance rates, which are subject to regulations promulgated and enforced by that office We would like to note, however, that the premium adjustment was not retroactive The adjustment was made as of the effective date of the policy change requested by the customer

I am writing in response to Revdex.com Complaint number [redacted] filed on October 13, for Plymouth Rock Assurance CorporationOur customer complained that we took nearly business days to approve rental reimbursement after an auto insurance accident and that we have not waived the customer’s $ deductible We spoke with the customer on October - the first business day after the accident - and explained all procedures and coverages, including the requirements for rental reimbursement and waiver of deductible We explained to the customer that waiver of their deductible required identification of the responsible party, as clearly set forth on the Waiver of Deductible endorsement On October 16, we authorized the customer’s rental reimbursement even though we found that the customer’s own vehicle was drivable and there was no indication from our conversation on the 15th that the customer required a rental Since that time, we have had numerous communications with the customer and the operator of her vehicle to explain the requirements of the Waiver of Deductible endorsement and the need to identify the responsible party in order to have the deductible waived As the responsible party has not been identified, the requirements have not been met

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***Please add your rejection comments below.
Besides not grasping the nature of my initial complaint, Plymouth Rock continues to surprise me with it's inferior communicationThe case described in their response is not what actually occurred with my claimThey are correct in saying that I am not a customer of theirs and maybe this is the reasoning behind the horrendous customer service, hopefully it is better for their real customersWith regards to the Plymouth Rock response to my complaint, they state that a representative spoke with me on the 24th of November, what they fail to mention is that I had been on hold for over an hour and hung up on and ignored consistentlySure they reimbursed half of the rental charge that was applied to my card but this was after about two hours of being shuffled between absent or rude representativesI would have been less upset about the wait time and the terrible treatment, if over the course of the previous month my claim representative had answered even one of my phone calls to discuss the caseTherefore, this situation would never have even arose should my claim representative had responded to or communicated with me in any way at allIt bewilders me that I was expected to know Plymouth Rock policy inherentlyAdditionally, the statement about the invoice being emailed is entirely incorrectThe rental company informed me that Plymouth Rock had closed the rental which then charged my credit cardI had no invoice for the rental in my possession at any time because it was being handled (supposedly) by Plymouth RockHence, the only real conversation I had was with the "manager" who was the only productive member of the Plymouth Rock representatives as he offered to reimburse half of the charges to my card, for which after hours of waiting and haggling I was willing to settleAlso, when I spoke to the manager he was aware of the charges applied without me supplying the knowledge of such so this clarifies that the financial statements and invoice was in Plymouth Rock possession and I was never asked to supply such documents so I am unsure as to why this was mentioned in the response.I am just hoping to make other clients and potential claimants aware of the challenges they will face when dealing with Plymouth Rock so they can clear their schedule if they are unlucky enough to be involved in an accident. Regards

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #***I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.
Regards,
*** ***

I am writing in response to Revdex.com complaint number ***
filed on 11/23/The “customer” in this case is a third-party auto insurance
claimant and not a customer of Plymouth Rock Assurance. The claimant made a claim against one of our
auto insurance policyholders. The
claimant
complained that Plymouth Rock Assurance did not respond appropriately
to his rental reimbursement claim. The
claimant filed a property damage claim directly with his own auto insurance
company for the damage to his vehicle, but separately filed a rental
reimbursement claim with Plymouth Rock.
Plymouth Rock Assurance agreed to reimburse the claimant for authorized
rental charges. A Plymouth Rock Claim Supervisor
spoke with the claimant on November 24, and explained that the claimant
had not yet sent in a copy of the invoice from the rental company. We could not reimburse the rental charges
without seeing the invoice. The claimant
emailed the invoice to us and we immediately issued the reimbursement check to
him
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint

We are sorry that our response did not satisfy the customer. As we noted in our prior response, the auto insurance policy issued to this customer was the standard Massachusetts Automobile Insurance Policy, approved by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance, utilized by much of the insurance industry in Massachusetts. It clearly and unambiguously states: “If you are filing a claim for damage to your auto, you or someone on your behalf must file a proof of loss within days after the accident.” This 91-day reporting requirement is an important provision designed to reduce insurance fraud. In this case, when the damage to the customer’s car occurred it was incumbent upon the customer to read the provisions of the policy that are relevant to filing a claim The 91-day filing requirement is not difficult to find. The first page of the policy contains a Table of Contents which clearly lists a section called “When There Is An Accident Or Loss” (in boldface). Turning to that section of the policy, one sees that it is only one page long and provides four steps for the customer to follow after a loss. The 91-day reporting requirement appears under “Third, File The Claim With Us.” Therefore, we believe we handled this claim fairly

We take great pride in our employees who work hard to provide the best service in the auto insurance businessWe reviewed the customer’s file and found nothing to indicate that we failed to answer or return any calls. We did not tell the customer that she needs to call any other companies to
resolve her claim. We handled the claim appropriately and paid the claim in a timely manner. We understand the customer disagrees with our determination that she was at-fault for the accident. That appears to be the reason for her complaint. We have explained to her that she has a right to appeal that decision and we offered to assist her with that process. The customer notified us in writing on August 10, 2016, that she will not contact us by phone or answer any of our calls. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with the customer further to address her concerns, or correspond with her in writing if that remains her preferred method of contact. Upon receipt of the notice from your office we wrote to the customer again extending that offer. Thank you for the opportunity to respond

We reviewed the customer’s file. The file shows that
we declined to offer the customer a renewal of her auto insurance policy when
the most recent policy term expired. That decision was made due to claims
history. We paid for four claims under the policy in less than
three
years. Claims frequency is a significant factor in determining the
likelihood of future claims. When the customer called, she was referred
to her local insurance agent because Plymouth Rock sells and services insurance
through independent agents. One benefit of working with an independent
agent is that independent agents typically represent multiple companies.
Every company has its own way of assessing riskIn this case, it appears the
agent was able to help the customer secure a policy from another company.
We are concerned about the customer’s allegation regarding the behavior of our
representative. Plymouth Rock prides itself on providing exceptional
customer service. We will investigate the customer’s allegation and take
appropriate disciplinary action if warranted. Thank you for the
opportunity to respond to this complaint

I am writing in response to Revdex.com complaint number ***
filed on 7/14/16. The “customer” in
this case is a third-party auto insurance claimant and not a customer of
Plymouth Rock Assurance. The claimant
complained that Plymouth Rock Assurance did not respond to his
girlfriend’s
numerous voice mails. Our Claims rep
spoke to the claimant’s girlfriend on June 15, 2016, and advised the claimant
to bring the car to the collision shop for an estimate and photographs. As of July 12th, no contact was made between
the claimant and the body shop. On July
14th, the claim rep received a call from the claimant’s girlfriend, notifying
the rep that the vehicle was at the body shop where it was inspected. On July 15, 2016, revised estimates were
received and settlements were issued to the claimant
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***.
When I signed up for the policy no one mentioned this restriction to meThey did not send me any letter highlighting this very important detail of the policyI was under the impression that just like other insurances once insured the company is responsible for the damageI even have a police report so there is no way that one can denyI am even thinking of hiring a lawyer if it does not get resolved without going to court
Regards,
*** ***

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com by our customer. Plymouth Rock Assurance is an auto insurance company and the customer complained about the premium charged for her policy after a vehicle and a driver were removed from the policy. The customer
originally complained directly to our company and we responded to the customer in writing on December 6, 2016. As we explained to the customer in our letter, we use a variety of factors to price individual insurance policies, and our rates have been accepted by, and are on file with, the Massachusetts Division of InsuranceThis customer originally had two vehicles and two drivers listed on her policy. When she removed one vehicle and one driver from the policy, the overall premium was reduced, but she noticed that the annual premium for the remaining vehicle was higher than the annual premium for just that vehicle had been before the change. The increase for that vehicle resulted from the interaction of the various rating factors under our rate filing, including the driver-to-vehicle ratio. The policy was originally issued with two vehicles and two drivers resulting in a total annual premium of $2,for both vehicles That included $1,for Vehicle and $1,for Vehicle 2. After removing Vehicle and the other listed driver, the resulting annual premium for Vehicle alone was $1, Our research has shown that the likelihood of a loss is higher on a one vehicle/one driver policy compared to a two vehicle/two driver policy; therefore, in general, one vehicle/one driver policies are charged more per vehicle than two vehicle/two driver policies. As a result of the reduction in total annual premium from $2,to $1,643, we sent the customer a premium refund check on December 12, based on the effective date of the change. We are sorry that the customer is not satisfied with the premium for her policy, but we believe our rates are competitive with other companies, especially when customers take advantage of the discounts we offerIn our letter to the customer we encouraged her to speak with her Plymouth Rock agent to review her insurance needs and make sure she is taking advantage of all discounts for which she qualifies

I
am writing on behalf of Plymouth Rock Assurance in response to the complaint
submitted by our auto insurance policyholder concerning a vandalism loss to her
***. The loss reportedly occurred on November 20, 2015. Our
Policyholder disagrees with our denial of her
Comprehensive coverage
claim. Plymouth Rock first received notice of the claim from our
policyholder on September 7, -- over weeks (Days) following the
occurrence. The policyholder reported that the vehicle was scratched on the
driver’s side doors while parked in a *** parking lot. The auto
insurance policy issued to this customer was the standard Massachusetts
Automobile Insurance Policy, approved by the Massachusetts Commissioner of
Insurance. It clearly states: “If you are filing a claim for damage to
your auto, you or someone on your behalf must file a proof of loss within
days after the accident.” Our claim representative explained to the
policyholder that her claim was denied due to the failure to comply with that
condition. On September 16, 2016, we sent a formal denial letter
As you can see, our denial of the claim was proper. Thank you for
the opportunity to respond

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***.
I called Plymouth Rock multiple times trying to understand the reason behind the price hike( especially the retroactive one)They tried to blame it first on the discounts that I lose for a multiple car policy, then they tried to blame it on the fact that the driver that was removed from the policy was more mature than meOn another phone call, after I pressed them harder they tried to blame it on the fact that I had a speed violation on my record (which dates almost years ago, and didn't affect the original policy to begin withAfter having to call them directly for many times they finally gave their final ridiculous explanation, that apparently their research shows that insuring one vehicle-one driver has a much higher risk to them than two vehicle-two drivers!!! And to top it off, they would apply that logic retroactively, which I strongly believe should even be legal. I specifically asked them to show me how they recalculated my premium retroactively and decided to increase it by 26%I wanted it explained in details and they refused to do I, apparently cause it would be too hard for me to understand and because somehow that is considered "proprietary information"
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # *** [If you are rejecting the business's response please enter your rejection comments here.]
Regards,
*** ***

I
am writing in response to Revdex.com Complaint number [redacted] filed on October 13,
2016 for Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation. Our customer complained that we
took nearly 2 business days to approve rental reimbursement after an auto
insurance accident and that we have not waived the customer’s...

$500
deductible.  We spoke with the customer on October 15 - the first business
day after the accident - and explained all procedures and coverages, including
the requirements for rental reimbursement and waiver of deductible.  We
explained to the customer that waiver of their deductible required
identification of the responsible party, as clearly set forth on the Waiver of
Deductible endorsement.  On October 16, we authorized the customer’s
rental reimbursement even though we found that the customer’s own vehicle was
drivable and there was no indication from our conversation on the 15th
that the customer required a rental.  Since that time, we have had
numerous communications with the customer and the operator of her vehicle to
explain the requirements of the Waiver of Deductible endorsement and the need
to identify the responsible party in order to have the deductible waived. 
As the responsible party has not been identified, the requirements have not
been met.

I am writing in response to Revdex.com complaint number [redacted] filed
on 11/23/15. Our customer complained that Plymouth Rock denied her
automobile insurance claim and was unresponsive during the handling of the
claim.We denied the customer’s claim after completing a thorough
investigation that...

determined the loss did not occur as reported by the
customer.  The customer reported that on 10/28/15 she found damage to the
driver’s side and front tire of her car that must have occurred while it was
parked in front of her house.  But there was no report of unusual noise
during the time that the accident allegedly occurred, no police were summoned,
and there were no witnesses.  Upon receiving the report of the claim we
approved three days of rental coverage for the customer.  A licensed auto
damage appraiser viewed the customer’s car  on 10/30/15 (within 48 hours
of receiving notice of the claim). The licensed appraiser found that the
damages to the car were inconsistent with the loss facts supplied by the
customer.  Upon receiving that information we engaged the services of an
accident reconstructionist to further evaluate the physical damages to the
customer’s car.  The experienced certified accident reconstructionist
determined, based on the physical evidence, that the damage to the car must
have been caused while the vehicle was in motion.  But the customer
reported that the damage occurred while the vehicle was parked.  As a
result of the timely and thorough investigation, the customer’s claim was
denied.  We informed her of the denial in writing. The customer was kept
up to date and was provided information throughout the investigation.  Due
to the apparent fraud, we referred the claim to the Massachusetts Insurance
Fraud Bureau for investigation.Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
I did not cause any of the accidents I was in.    I was backed into when I was legally parked and they just left the scene of the accident.    I was driven into my someone illegally entering my lane without looking where they where driving, I was rear ended by someone in a line of cars when I was at a complete stop.They only damage I did was  mirror.    I have no speeding tickets, moving violation, and a clean record at the registry.Based upon that information, I see no risk of me being in an accident.They are wrong.
Regards,
[redacted]

The customer has also filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.  Our response to the Division of Insurance will contain a more detailed explanation of the premium adjustment that resulted from the customer’s requested policy change.  The Division of Insurance complaint process is a more appropriate venue for addressing questions about insurance rates, which are subject to regulations promulgated and enforced by that office.  We would like to note, however, that the premium adjustment was not retroactive.  The adjustment was made as of the effective date of the policy change requested by the customer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. 
Plymouth Rock has NOT "handed this matter fairly and reasonably" as they stated.  Their claims rep [redacted] seems to have no other interest than to push me off until I go away.  She takes DAYS to return calls and only after I initiate communication.  It has been 33 days since the accident.  I called [redacted] on the 8th (30 days after the accident) and her return call stated that it had not been 30 days, showing this company can not even do simple math like counting days.  The only reason they accepted to pay for a rental is because I filed a complaint with the Revdex.com and the MA insurance commission.  Today I had to put out my deductible to the body shop to get my car back.  If I am not directly reimbursed within 20 days of today for the total amount of my deductible and [redacted] has been paid in full for the accident that THEIR insured caused, I will file another complaint, this time with the MA Attorney General's office.  It's not my fault Plymouth Rock is unable to contact their insured, but they do insure the car that was being driven and need to take the responsibility.  It seems the reviews of Plymouth Rock online are accurate.  This is a terrible company with terrible employees and all of their negative reviews are justified.  I promise I will be adding to their negative reviews.  I do not accept this response! 
Regards,
[redacted]