Preferred Mutual Insurance Company

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below First, I find it quite comical that [redacted] responded to my complaintI left a half of dozen messages for her and called her numerous times and she NEVER bothered to call me backI would like an apology from for company, for the lack of follow through and rude manner in which I was treatedTo that end, the claims adjuster who she supervises also never responded to my calls once I won my case, [redacted] .Second, there a numerous factual errors stated by miss ***The insurance surcharge board, which has the legal authority in this matter, found that I was NOT more than 50% at faultThe evidence presented to the board was exactly the same as presented to Preferred Mutual and I was found not at faultPreferred Mutual had the chance to make their case at the board and lost.Third, there is no way that Ms [redacted] is informed on what I was told by Mr [redacted] At the time that I filed a claim, I specifically asked [redacted] about the deductibleHe said, if you do not receive your deductible because you are found at fault, which seemed doubtful to me at that point, I could appeal the decision and could contact them to arrange getting my deductible back if I won my appealHe said this happens regularly and would not be a problem to take care ofHowever, his position apparently changed once I won my case at the appeal board in his fault the termination was found to be incorrect and not consistent with the standards of the merit rating planHe refused to call me back, as did his supervisor [redacted] ***.To that end, I was so frustrated by my dealing with preferred mutual that I was forced to open a Revdex.com complaintI have never opened such a complaint and the lack of follow-through, incorrect information, and the utter indecency demonstrated by [redacted] and her staff left me no other optionThat said, upon opening a complaint and alerting Preferred Mutual to this, I spoke with [redacted] ***'s bossShe informed me that I've been given incorrect information by [redacted] and that she would be more than happy to open an arbitration case to get me my deductible backWhile this is not yet a resolution, at least someone finally spoke to me regarding this matterNonetheless, I do not intend to close my complaint until I get a formal apology from [redacted] and her staff and my deductible back, which I was told I was entitled to by [redacted] the claims adjuster Regards, [redacted] ***

We have received the Revdex.com complaint from the insured regarding an exterior walk-around inspection of his home related to his homeowners insurance policy An inspection was ordered in August of An old phone number was provided on the request so the inspector was unable to reach the insuredHe left his call back card in the door and completed the exterior inspection hoping the insured would call back to set up an appointment to complete the rest of the property inspectionThe insured did not contact the inspectorIn the interim we were able to provide the inspector with a new phone numberThe inspector called the insured in September of and the insured refused to cooperate and allow the inspectionWe contacted the insured's agent and advised the recommendations that needed to be complied with that were discovered during the exterior walk-around inspection, and listed those concerns ( install handrail on stairs; removal of debris and clutter around the property.) As of September 2017, we still had not been advised that our recommendations had been complied withSince the policy was to renew on December 3, 2017, we sent a Non-Renewal Notice for non-compliance with recommendations within a specified time period Preferred Mutual Insurance Company One Preferred Way I New Berlin, NY p: [redacted] www.preferredmutual.com Regarding the insured's concern about the inspection, please refer to the policy language under Policy Conditions in the insureds policy which reads: Inspections -- "Wehave the right, but are not obligated, to inspect "your" property and operationsThis inspection may be made by "us or may be made on "our behalfAn inspection or its resulting advice or report does not warrant that "your" property or operations are safe, healthful, or incompliance with laws, rules, or regulations Inspections or reports are for "our" benefit only We recommend the insured contact his agent to arrange replacement of his insurance with another insurance company Sincerely, John J D [redacted] Underwriting Manager- Personal Lines [redacted]

08/11/2015 Claim #***
RevDex.com, Inc(Upstate, NY)
Re: Policy
# Ending In:***
Claim # Ending In: ***
Revdex.com ID #: ***
Dear
Revdex.com:
Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of a complaint referenced as ID #
***At your request we have left any specific identifying information out
of our response. Please note this
response is in response to the complainant’s further inquiry.
We
have further reviewed the claim and in an effort to accommodate the insured and
relieve any undue hardship we have issued a payment for $32,under the
additional living expense coverage. The
$32,represents the remaining cost of the rental property for the year
lease. We had previously issued a
$16,paymentAdditionally, we have issued another advance on the content
claim of $10,000. These additional
payments will increase the total advance payments on the file for additional
living expenses and contents to $48,and $60,respectively
Please
note that in this claim the insured has hired a public adjuster as their representation
for this claim. When an insured has
formal representation, we direct all communication through the
representative. As the complaint to the
Revdex.com notes, the insured is requesting a clear path and
clarity. The best way to obtain these requests
is through the insured’s hired representation.
We have confirmed that our adjuster has been in and will continue to be
in regular contact with the insured’s public adjuster. Going forward we would kindly ask that the
insured use his hired representative to communicate any further demands or
inquiries. We will promptly respond to
any requests submitted through the public adjuster. Should the status of the insured’s representation
change, please let us know.
Our
hope is that this response addresses to your satisfaction any and all questions
associated with this matter. Should you
require any additional information please contact the undersigned
Sincerely,
Daniel T, CPCU
AIC ARM SCLA
Property
Claims Manager
*** ***
***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meThey agreed to pay the rental up until I received my vehicleI received my vehicle on Friday, April 3rd, and thus returned the rental carPreferred Mutual paid for thisI also received a check from Preferred Mutual on March 31st for the value of the car (minus the salvage value of the car, since I am keeping it).
Regards,
*** ***

To Whom It May Concern:
Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of a complaint put forth by *** ** ***
This
complaint involves a claim in which we found the insured to be more than 50%
at fault for the accident. As such, the
insured was surcharged for the
accident.
The *** Division of Insurance affords the option to dispute
the surcharge, which Mr. *** did. The *** Insurance Appeal Board vacated the surcharge at a hearing held
on January 12, 2015. We were notified
of the Board’s decision on January 20, and the surcharge was revoked on
January 22,
Mr***’s complaint states that he was told by Preferred that his deductible
would be refunded if he prevailed at the hearing. There is no record of such a conversation in
our file notes, and we specifically reject that this was said to him We spoke to Mr. *** via telephone on
February 3, and explained that the *** Insurance Appeal Board’s
decision affects the surcharge only; it has no bearing on Preferred’s
liability decision. In order to have
his deductible returned, the claim would need to go through intercompany
arbitration.
As
a resolution, we advised Mr. *** that we will submit the claim to the
arbitration panel in an attempt to recover his deductibleAt this time, the claim
has been submitted to our subrogation unit for further handling. If we are able to recover from the adverse
carrier, his deductible will be refunded
Our
hope is that this response is satisfactory to address any and all questions
associated with this matter. Should you
require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned
Respectfully submitted,
*** ** ***, AIC
Physical
Damage Claims Manager
###-###-####
Ext.***
***@***.com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The 16K was a reimbursement of funds that I had already paid for rent 12K out of my own pocket and had to pull teeth to get funds that were entitled to me to pay my rent on top of my mortgage Furthermore, the 50K advance was to cover some of the content we lost in the fire which estimated to be about over $200K For a Family of including small children, 50K does not anywhere come close to replacing the contents/furniture, clothes, toys, etc that we have lost I have requested that Preferred Mutual advance me Loss of Use months in advance to help alleviate financial pressure and each time, they either refuse to talk to me, or keep moving the goal post I have submitted my months lease agreement to them and should be able to recover that amount without having to jump through hoops I need a clear path and clarity to PM's process for their insured to be paid out on what they are to, because right now I feel though I need to BEG to get paid out
Regards,

07/17/2015                  Claim #[redacted]
 
RevDex.com, Inc. (Upstate, NY)
 
 
Re:       Policy
# Ending In:[redacted]
Claim # Ending In:...

[redacted]                  
 
Revdex.com ID #: [redacted]
 
Dear
Revdex.com:
 
Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of a complaint referenced as ID #
[redacted]. At your request we have left any specific identifying information out
of our response.   
 
We
have reviewed the complaint and the claim file and determined that an advance
payment for $16,000 was issued to the insured on July 16, 2015 at 7:48 AM.  The $16,000 payment was requested by the
insured’s Public Adjuster through our adjuster at [redacted].  Our adjuster advised us of the request in an
email dated July 15, 2015.  In speaking
with the adjuster he also advised that we previously had offered to pay the
monthly rental directly to the landlord but this offer was declined. 
 
Further,
a review of the file shows we had previously issued two advances to the insured
for $25,000 each.  It was not until the
Public Adjuster’s request for the $16,000 that we learned the insured had used
the previously issued $50,000.
 
We
will further follow-up with the insured’s public adjuster to ensure the insured
has and will continue to have enough advance funds so as to avoid any undo
financial hardship related to the claim. 
 
 
Our
hope is that this response addresses to your satisfaction any and all questions
associated with this matter.  Should you
require any additional information please contact the undersigned.
 
Sincerely,


Daniel T, CPCU
AIC ARM SCLA
Property
Claims Manager
[redacted]
[redacted]

03/23/2015                  Claim #[redacted]
Re:       Insured:
[redacted]
            Date
of Occurrence:...

02/07/2015
-           Policy
#: [redacted]
Claim #: [redacted]                  
 Revdex.com ID #: [redacted]
Complainant:
[redacted]
 
Dear
Revdex.com:
 
Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of a complaint put forth by [redacted]. 
 
We
have reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s complaint and his claim file.  A review of the claim file shows Mr. [redacted]
filed a claim with Preferred Mutual on February 11, 2015.  Within ten minutes of receiving the claim a
Claim Representative contacted Mr. [redacted] and left a message advising the
claim would be assigned to an independent adjuster.  The independent adjuster set an appointment
with Mr. [redacted] for February 13, 2015. 
The adjuster then submitted his report to Preferred Mutual at 6:18 PM
on March 5, 2015.  Mr. [redacted] called
Preferred Mutual at 9:55 AM on March 6, 2015 and spoke with the assigned Claim
Representative who advised a payment was being issued.  The payment was issued on March 6, 2015 and
mailed at the very latest on March 9, 2015. 

 
To
date the check has not been cashed. As of the writing of this letter we have
left two voicemails for Mr. [redacted] asking for a call back.  If Mr. [redacted] has not received the check,
we will gladly reissue a new check and overnight the new check.
 
In
reviewing the claim file and the associated timeline we do not feel there was
any unjust delay or inappropriate handling with Mr. [redacted]’s claim.  The payment was issued within 23 days after
the claim was reported and we find this to be within normal protocols.
 
Our
hope is that this response addresses to your satisfaction any and all questions
associated with this matter.  Should you
require any additional information please contact the undersigned.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted].
[redacted]Thall, CPCU
AIC ARM SCLA
Property
Claims Manager
###-###-####
Ext.[redacted]
[redacted].com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
First, I find it quite comical that [redacted] responded to my complaint. I left a half of dozen messages for her and called her numerous times and she NEVER bothered to call me back. I would like an apology from for company, for the lack of follow through and rude manner in which I was treated. To that end, the claims adjuster who she supervises also never responded to my calls once I won my case, [redacted].Second, there a numerous factual errors stated by miss [redacted]. The insurance surcharge board, which has the legal authority in this matter, found that I was NOT more than 50% at fault. The evidence presented to the board was exactly the same as presented to Preferred Mutual and I was found not at fault. Preferred Mutual had the chance to make their case at the board and lost.Third, there is no way that Ms. [redacted] is informed on what I was told by Mr. [redacted]. At the time that I filed a claim, I specifically asked [redacted] about the deductible. He said, if you do not receive your deductible because you are found at fault, which seemed doubtful to me at that point, I could appeal the decision and could contact them to arrange getting my deductible back if I won my appeal. He said this happens regularly and would not be a problem to take care of. However, his position apparently changed once I won my case at the appeal board in his fault the termination was found to be incorrect and not consistent with the standards of the merit rating plan. He refused to call me back, as did his supervisor [redacted].To that end, I was so frustrated by my dealing with preferred mutual that I was forced to open a Revdex.com complaint. I have never opened such a complaint and the lack of follow-through, incorrect information, and the utter indecency demonstrated by [redacted] and her staff left me no other option. That said, upon opening a complaint and alerting Preferred Mutual to this, I spoke with [redacted]'s boss. She informed me that I've been given incorrect information by [redacted] and that she would be more than happy to open an arbitration case to get me my deductible back. While this is not yet a resolution, at least someone finally spoke to me regarding this matter. Nonetheless, I do not intend to close my complaint until I get a formal apology from [redacted] and her staff and my deductible back, which I was told I was entitled to by [redacted] the claims adjuster.
Regards,
[redacted]

03/31/2015                  Claim #[redacted] 
Re:       Insured:
[redacted]
-           Claimant:
[redacted]...

[redacted]
            Date
of Occurrence: 11/18/2014
Policy #: [redacted]
Claim #: [redacted]      
Complaint ID# [redacted]
 To Whom It May Concern:
Preferred
Mutual Insurance Company acknowledges receipt of a complaint put forth by
[redacted] 
We
have reviewed this claim in its entirety. 
A timeline of the claim Mr. [redacted] presented is below, which we hope
sheds some light on the nature of the claim.
·        
11/18/14 - Date of loss; Claim received by
Preferred Mutual.
·        
11/20/14 - Contact made with Mr. [redacted],
appraiser assigned to inspect vehicle.
·        
11/21/14 - Vehicle inspected by 1st appraiser.
·        
11/24/14 - Appraisal report received.
·        
11/25/14 - Payment made to Mr. [redacted] for
visible damage in the amount of $492.42.
·        
12/15/14 - Received call from shop asking for
rental to be set up for Mr. [redacted] - rental was accepted. A copy of the
appraisal was emailed to the shop.
·        
12/30/14 - Received call from shop stating that
the appraiser won’t complete a supplement. Appraiser was contacted and we were
advised that there was a conflict between the shop and appraiser relating to a
different claim and appraiser was asked to leave.  As such, an alternate appraiser was assigned
to handle the supplement.
·        
12/31/14 - Received confirmation from new
appraiser on receipt of assignment.
·        
1/6/15 - Vehicle was reinspected for supplement
at shop.
·        
1/7/15 - Supplement report received and 2nd
payment issued in the amount of $811.58.
·        
1/19/15 - Second supplement requested by shop.
·        
1/20/15 - Appraiser was unavailable due to a
family emergency, 2nd supplement was reassigned.
·        
1/21/15 - Second supplement report received
indicating that shop was requesting $6,000+ in repairs to undamaged portions
of the vehicle. Claim was reviewed and decision was made that no further
payments would be made. Shop and Mr. [redacted] were both advised of this decision
in writing. Mr. [redacted] asked for a 4th appraiser to be assigned. Preferred
Mutual declined to send a 4th appraiser out, as the prior three all
agreed that the damages to the vehicle were minor, and what the shop was
requesting was unnecessary.
·        
2/2/15 - Preferred Mutual was contacted by shop
via email, again requesting the same unnecessary supplement.
·        
2/5/15 - Email response was sent to shop owner
[redacted], and advised that we are standing by our appraisal, which was
written to industry and general repair standards. We also advised that if Mr.
[redacted] elected to have OEM parts installed, it would be at his own expense.
However, it was indicated that if there was an issue with fit or quality of
any of the parts written in our appraisal, that we would gladly reconsider
usage, so long as proof of the specific issue was provided.
·        
2/20/15 - Claim was conferenced via telephone
with shop and Mr. [redacted]. Shop owner expressed his concerns with our appraisal.
At that time, we advised we would review in house, again, and let them know
whether or not any additional payments would be issued.
·        
Claim file was reviewed with in house
appraiser, who agreed that additional repairs being requested by shop were
unnecessary and unreasonable.  At this
time, we admit, there was a lapse in communication with Mr. [redacted]. Rental had
been approved through 2/24/15 for a total of 50 days.
·        
3/17/15 - Mr. [redacted] was contacted via phone,
and our claims representative explained again, that we would be standing by
our position that no further payments would be made.
·        
3/18/15 - Claim file was conferenced with
Property Operations Manager, who contacted shop owner. Shop owner advised that
the parts written in our appraisal were no longer available. We agreed to
replace with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts as well as send out
original appraiser to review entire claim with shop owner.
·        
3/25/15 - Final inspection of Mr. [redacted]’s
vehicle was performed.  Upon receipt of
appraiser’s report, the decision was made to consider Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle a
constructive total loss.  Shop was
unwilling to waiver on their stance that the vehicle needed over $6,000 in
repairs, which was significantly higher than the value of the vehicle. Total
loss figures were calculated and discussed with Mr. [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] was advised that we would pay
additional rental through 3/26/15, to which he agreed.  A check for the total loss settlement in the
amount of $3141.10 was mailed out the following morning. An additional payment
of $2830.37 was issued to Mr. [redacted] for his out of pocket rental expense
through 3/26/15. The shop was contacted on 3/25/15 as well to advise of total
loss and obtain total loss charges.
·        
3/26/15 - Invoice received from shop for
$12,100.00 in charges, including: 99 days of storage at $100/day;
administration fees, gate fees, nature removal fees, collision wrap fees,
dismantle vehicle fees, assemble vehicle fees, collision debris removal fee
and collision access fees.
·        
3/26/15 - By recommendation of our attorney,
payment was made under duress to
shop in the amount of $12,200.00 and overnighted the following morning.
 
Our
hope is that this response is satisfactory to address any and all questions
associated with this matter.  Should you
require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
 
Sincerely,

[redacted]
Physical
Damage Claims Manager
###-###-####
Ext.1278
[email protected]

We have received the Revdex.com complaint from the insured regarding an exterior walk-around inspection of his home related to his homeowners insurance policy.  An inspection was ordered in August of 2016. An old phone number was provided on the request so the inspector was unable to reach the...

insured. He left his call back card in the door and completed the exterior inspection hoping  the insured would call back to set up an appointment to complete the rest of the property inspection. The insured did not contact the inspector. In the interim we were able to provide the inspector with a new phone number. The inspector  called the insured in September of 2016 and the insured refused to cooperate and allow the inspection. We contacted the insured's agent and advised the recommendations that needed to be complied with that were discovered during the exterior walk-around inspection, and listed those concerns ( install handrail on stairs; removal of debris and clutter around the property.) As of September 2017, we still had not been advised that our recommendations had been complied with. Since the policy was to renew on December 3, 2017, we sent a Non-Renewal Notice for non-compliance with   recommendations within a specified time period.  Preferred Mutual Insurance Company One Preferred Way I New Berlin, NY 13411 p: [redacted]  www.preferredmutual.com  Regarding the insured's concern about the inspection, please refer to the policy language under Policy Conditions in the insureds policy which reads: 6. Inspections -- "We.. have the right, but are not obligated, to inspect "your" property and operations. This inspection may be made by "us .. or may be made on "our .. behalf. An inspection or its resulting advice or report does not warrant that "your"  property or operations are safe, healthful, or incompliance with laws, rules, or regulations.  Inspections or reports are for "our" benefit only.  We recommend the insured contact his agent to arrange replacement of his  insurance with another insurance company.  Sincerely,  John J D[redacted]  Underwriting Manager- Personal Lines  [redacted]