Progressive Corporation

September 14, 2016Revdex.comEuclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: *** ***Re: File Number: *** Customer Name: *** *** Policy Number: *** Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: *** Company Name: Progressive Direct Insurance CompanyMs***,I’m happy to provide a breakdown of the charges thus far, the amount paid and an explanation for the remaining installment billings.This policy term is scheduled to run from June 27, to December 27, which is days of coverage.Initially with Mrs***’s daughter on the policy the total six month rate was $1,This was scheduled to be automatically withdrawn via EFT on the 27th day of each monthMrs***’s original installments were $(installment plus $filing fee) for June and $for the remaining five installmentsThis costs approximately $per day for coverage.The EFT billing method was removed from the policy from August 4, to December 27, at a revised rate of $1,This costs approximately $per day for coverage.Now that Mrs***’s daughter is no longer on the policy, the six month rate is $1,This costs approximately $per day for the remaining days in the policy term from September 1, to December 27, 2016.Below is a breakdown of the charges:$Charges from June 27, to August 4, 2016- days @ $8.60$Charges from August 4, to December 27, days @ $per day$Charges from September 1, to December 27, days @ $per day$ SRfiling fee===================================================$Approximate Charges to date- with no changes to December 27, 2016Payments received:$July 17, (Applied to June 27, payment)$August 19, (Applied to July 27, payment)$September 3, (Applied to August 27, payment)$Total payments received$Total charges - Less total payments received$ Remaining balance does not include future installment feesThe remaining balance is being split into the three remaining installments for September 27, 2016, October 27, and November 27, Each payment will be $plus a $installment fee.I’m sorry for any confusion this has causedWe try to make our billing as convenient as possible for our customers. When Mrs*** is ready to go back on the automatic payment withdrawals, please have her contact me directly for assistance at 1-440-620-6943.Sincerely,Nancy A***Nancy A***Consumer Relations Specialist

The response is attached

January 19, 2016Revdex.com Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: *** *** Re: File Number: *** Customer Name: *** *** Policy Number: *** Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: *** Company Name: Progressive Direct Insurance Company *** ***I’m writing in reply to your follow up letter dated January 4, 2016. After further review with our Legal Department, we will honor *** ***’s request to change his Loyalty Rewards level to CrownWe’ve updated his policy to reflect this, as shown on the enclosed ID cards. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 1-440-*** Sincerely, Anna O***Anna O***Consumer Relations Specialist

April 13, 2018 Revdex.com, IncEuclid Avenue 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: *** *** Re: File Number: ***
Customer Name: *** *** Policy Number: *** Policy Type: *** *** NAIC Number: *** Company Name: Progressive Advanced Insurance Company Ms***, I’m writing in reply to your letter dated April 10, 2018, regarding the complaint filed by Ms***, regarding the nonrenewal of the policyThank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond. On March 2, 2018, we mailed a Nonrenewal Notice to Ms***, advising that we were nonrenewing the policy due to her having five claims since the inception of the policyWe do take into consideration glass claims in determining a risk, as well as at-fault accidentsI’ve included a copy of the Policy Contract and Endorsement that provides an explanation of our guidelines regarding cancellation/non-renewals. I understand that Ms*** pays for this coverage and we issued payments for the claims filedUnfortunately, because of the number claims Ms*** has had in the 36-month period, we’ve determined this policy to be an unacceptable risk If you have any questions, please call me at ***. Sincerely, *** *** *** ***Consumer Relations Specialist

(The following was copy/paste by Revdex.com staff - LST)***November 22, 2017Revdex.comEuclid Ave, 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: Lou *** RE: File Number: *** File Name: Michael D*** Claim Number: *** Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: *** Company Name: Progressive Universal Insurance CompanyMrT***I’m writing in reply to your November 16, inquiryThank you for forwarding MrD***’s concernsI’m very sorry to hear there’s some confusion regarding coverages on MrD***’s policyI’ve reviewed the claim file and am happy to report MrD***’s questions have been addressed by a supervisorI appreciate the chance to explain what happened.When MrD*** was replacing his Subaru with a Honda Pilot, he authorized the dealership to make changes on his behalfOur representative let the dealership representative know the Subaru included Comprehensive and Collision coverages with a $deductibleWe asked if these coverages met the lienholder’s requirementsThe lienholder said the coverages were fine. Several years ago, we stopped offering $glass deductible for New HampshireWe grandfathered in vehicles that already had the coverage, but moving forward this coverage would be removed with other vehiclesOur Policy Services representative should have explained this to MrD*** when the vehicle change was processedI’m sorry this wasn’t explained. On November 16, 2017, our supervisor spoke to MrD*** about the situation. Because the coverage change wasn’t properly relayed to MrD***, we decided to honor the $deductible as a one-time courtesyOur supervisor sa referral with Safelite, and provided them with MrD***’s contact information to make sure the process was an easy one. Our goal is to consistently provide superior service to our customersI know we failed to meet those expectations in this situation, and I’m sorry for that.I’d like to thank MrD*** and his family for their loyalty over the years. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at *** with any questions.Sincerely,Rebecca M***Rebecca M***Claims Manager

January 19, 2016Revdex.com Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: *** *** Re: File Number: *** Customer Name: *** *** Claim Number: *** Policy Type: Commercial Lines NAIC Number: *** Company
Name: Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company Ms***,I’m writing in reply to your letter dated January 8, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation. On December 5, 2015, Ms*** reported a loss under her policy for *** ***, LLC, which involved a Chrysler Town and Country driven by *** ***Because both parties involved in the loss had a policy with us, there were two claims generated, one under each policyThe claim number generated for Ms***s policy was ***. On December 7, 2015, we assigned both claims and began our investigation.On December 8, 2015, we secured photos of the Chrysler Town and CountryThe point of impact was to the left side of the vehicle between the fender and the front door.On December 9, 2015, we reached Mr*** for a recorded statementHe advised that he made a left turn onto westbound *** Avenue after waiting for the ***, driven by *** ***, to pass in front of him so that the road was clear for entryHe intended to make a right turn onto *** Boulevard at the next turn, which was one block aheadHe made the left turn into the right lane at the point where *** changes from one lane to twoMr*** pulled to the right of the *** tractor and trailer and was midway even with the ***’s trailer, when he realized it was making a right turnHe tried to pull over into the bike lane to the right to avoid the collisionMr*** stated the point of impact was to the middle of the trailer, but there was no visible damageHe indicates he did not see a turn signal on the ***We advised Mr*** of the liability dispute based on the reported information and the possibility of shared responsibility, which he did not dispute.On December 12, 2015, we secured a recorded statement from Mr***He stated he was traveling westbound on *** attempting to make a right turn onto *** BoulevardHe advised that based on the width of the road, size of his truck and trailer and angle of the turn, he needed to pull his truck left at the intersection in order to have room to make his right turnHe states he used his right blinker throughout his approach and turnAfter completing the turn, another vehicle indicated to him that there was an accident, and he returned to the sceneThere was no indication of an impact on his trailer, but the damage to the Chrysler was to the left side.We determined that it would not have been possible for the *** to make a right turn without starting it from the left hand laneMr*** would have the duty to leave appropriate room to determine both the direction of travel and the space needed for the semi-truck, because the truck was on the roadway prior to and ahead of himMr*** pulled into the blind spot of Mr***, who was already in the process of making his turnThe point of impact to the middle of the trailer supports that the tractor was already well into the right turn, as the trailer is being pulled and therefore follows that movementThis shows that Mr*** had control of the right turn lane and Mr*** violated ORS for unsafe passing on the rightAdditionally, because of the extra space needed for the *** and trailer to execute a proper right turn, Mr*** did begin his right turn from as far right as practicable and was not in violation of ORS *** Because of this, we finalized liability adverse to Mr*** and sent him a Denial Letter. On December 19, 2015, we called Ms*** and advised her of our liability decision and that we would not be able to pay for the damages to the Chrysler under the ***’s policy.On December 29, 2015, Ms*** called us to dispute the liability decision and alerted us to the witness statements she saw on the police reportWe reviewed the police report, which we had previously received on December 21, The police report contained a description of interviews obtained from the witnesses who followed Mr*** to alert him to the accidentThey confirmed that Mr*** made the right turn from the left turn lane and that they did not see his blinker until the middle of the turnNo citations were indicated on the report.We initially reviewed the scene of the accident using Google Maps during both drivers’ statements and further analyzed the scene to re-review our liability determinationThe driveway of the Fred Meyer parking lot where Mr*** had entered the roadway was approximately one block from the intersectionAlmost immediately after completing that turn, a wide single lane splits into two lanes, which are designated exclusively for left or right turns onto *** BoulevardThere is a narrow bike lane and a sidewalk to the rightThe scene supports that based on the size of Mr***’s ***, it would not be possible to complete a right turn without starting it from the left lane.Our review of this new evidence further supported that Mr*** would be primarily responsible for the incidentThe witnesses confirm that they sawMr*** using his right turn blinker and that he was traveling at an appropriate speed for a semi-truck making a right turnWhen Mr*** began his turn, Mr*** would have still been entering the roadway, because the first intersection is in close proximity to the nextIt was undisputed that the Chrysler was traveling faster than the ***, pulling up to its right from behindMr*** owed the duty to make sure he left the *** enough room to execute his turn, accounting for the dynamics of a large vehicle and should have made sure it was safe to pull to the right prior to doing soAs the rear vehicle, maintaining this space was his duty.Unfortunately, because Mr*** was primarily the cause of the accident, he would not be entitled to collect damages under Mr***’s policyBecause Ms***s policy for the Chrysler Town and Country does not carry Collision coverage, we are not able to pay for the damages sustained in the loss.I’m sorry for the inconvenience Ms*** experiencedIf you have any questions, please call me at 1-971-273- Sincerely,*** ***
*** ***Claims SupervisorEnclosures

March 28, 2016Revdex.com Euclid Avenue, 4th floorCleveland, OH 44115Attn: *** ***Re: File Number: ***Customer Name: *** ***Claim Number: ***Policy Number: ***Policy Type: Personal AutoNAIC Number: *** Company Name: United Financial Casualty CompanyMs***,I’m writing in reply to your follow up letter dated March 21, 2016.The sensor we were referring to in our prior correspondence involves the anti-lock brake system (ABS) and we believe it was addressed after the repairs of the vehicle. We also believe the *** has been returned to its pre-loss conditionWe have offered previously to work with any shop Ms*** may retain to address any additional issues she feels are related to this lossWe have specifically urged Ms*** to take the *** to a local dealer for additional diagnosis proceduresIf additional repairs are necessary on the *** that are related to the loss we will certainly address them We remain ready to assist Ms***She will need to let us know when her *** will be located at a dealership, so a diagnostic evaluation of the ABS sensor can be completedPlease call me at 1-916-246-if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Thomas AS***

I reluctantly accept this horrible response even though it does not address all of my concerns. I did receive a call from the supervisor who never returned my call the first time and she apologized 10 or 12 times. That still doesn't het back the time I lost taking off of work to rush to get my truck. Apparently, the fact that she never returned my call wasn't communicated to the person responding to the claim. It is clear that communication does not exist at Progressive. This is a poor, one-sided excuse for a response but I have clicked accept in order to relieve myself of the burden of their uselessness. I'm sure they will be relieved when my premiums are donand I spend the money somewhere else. Thanks for nothing Progressive, have a nice day.

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.
The statement from progressive is not accurate,  In their response, Progressive indicated that they stated "We have asked [redacted] for pictures of the damage to his mother in laws car, unfortunately he has refused."  This is a flat out lie.  I absolutely, in no uncertain terms, DID NOT "refuse" to provide photographs.  When asked to provide pictures, I responded that I did not reside with my mother-in-law and it would take time to arrange to obtain photographs of the damage.  He then informed me that their insured driver would be filing a claim against my mother-in-law's [redacted] policy and the Progressive Claims Department representative, Anthony D[redacted], hung up on me without providing any information on how to submit photographs.  [redacted] subsequently received a notice from Progressive incorrectly indicating that their decision was made based on "available facts", even though they made no effort to collect available facts.  
I have since been able to take photographs which indicate the direction of the collision, proximity to the front and rear of the vehicle and include over-scratches, all which contradict Progressive's claim that [redacted] pulled out in front of their insured driver.  Again, Anthony D[redacted] hung up on me.  He did not provide an opportunity to submit photographs and he made no effort to inspect the vehicle damage. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] [redacted]May 17, 2017Revdex.com 2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH  44115 Attn: [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] File Name: John [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted]Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: [redacted] Company Name: Progressive Northern Insurance Company      Mr. [redacted],  I’m writing in response to your follow up letter dated May 11, 2017. Mr. [redacted] sent us an email from a national appraisal company that confirms our valuation is “right in line with what we are seeing in that market” if the conditioning adjustments were not taken into consideration. I’ve confirmed with this company that they didn’t complete an independent inspection of Mr. [redacted] vehicle, and they wouldn’t be able to review any adjustments taken for prior damages. Per New Hampshire state law, we have the right to consider any pre-existing damages in this valuation that would impact the value of his vehicle. Again, I reference NH RSA Ins. 1002:15, which states we’re obligated to compensate Mr. [redacted] for the fair market value of his vehicle at the time of the loss.  In response to Mr. [redacted] request for seven months of loss use, we respectfully decline providing any addition compensation for this, because we already compensated him in October of 2016.If Mr. [redacted] would like to review the settlement of his claim, I’d be happy to discuss his options with him. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me directly at [redacted].Sincerely,Elizabeth [redacted]NH MRR Supervisor

(The following was copy/paste by Revdex.com staff - [redacted]From: [redacted]>Date: Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:04 PMSubject: Response to my Revdex.com case.To: "[redacted]>ID # [redacted]- Progressive Corporation Hello [redacted], I still haven’t received a reimbursement from my accident. Also I asked my claim adjuster about it and they said it was supposed to get to me  by the end of last week still haven’t received it. I also asked about damage that was done on the right front quarter panel by the wheel to see if pictures were sent in originally so that could be repaired bc as of right now the [redacted] body shop doesn’t seem to have fix all of the damages that were sustained in the accident last year. They seemed to avoid the issue. I am sorry that I waited so long to respond, but I was waiting on them to see if they would respond back to me. To respond back to Brian, yes I would like to have a letter that Brian could provide for the inaccuracies in the [redacted] report and [redacted]. As far as the MVR I have had another insurance company check into it and they state they do not see the 2 points on the MVR or where any record of it where it was shown. I do not understand how two companies can come up with two different results. Thanks, [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

October 24, 2016Revdex.com 2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH  44115Attn: [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] File Name: [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: [redacted] Company Name: Progressive Advanced Insurance CompanyMs. [redacted], I’m writing in reply to your follow up letter dated October 18, 2016.Thank you for your inquiry. We’ve completed a review of the file and the status of the file has changed since Mr. [redacted]’s last correspondence.On October 18, 2016, our Claims Representative Kevin L[redacted], contacted Mr. [redacted] and negotiated a settlement. We secured a release the same day and issued payment. The claim is now closed.If you have any questions, please call me at 1-440-910-7892. Sincerely,Brian M[redacted]Brian M[redacted]Commercial Claims Manager

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] [redacted]May 24, 2017Revdex.com 2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th floorCleveland, OH  44115Attn: [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] File Name: Chia [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Type: Commercial Lines NAIC Number: [redacted] Company...

Name: Progressive Casualty Insurance CompanyMr. [redacted],I’m writing in reply to your letter dated May 20, 2017.We accepted liability for the loss that occurred on May 15, 2017. We inspected Mr. [redacted] 2007 Toyota Camry on May 18, 2017. We declared the vehicle a total loss as the cost to repair the vehicle exceeded the value. We determined the vehicle value to be $4,115.32. This amount included a deduction for a guaranteed salvage bid on the vehicle, as Mr. ** advised us of his intention to retain the salvage. We issued the settlement draft on May 21, 2017.The estimate Mr. ** provided from his repair shop of choice appears higher than the total loss settlement he received. As our settlement offer is based on the actual value of the vehicle less a salvage bid, we are not able to match the estimate given to him for repair and meet this request.If you have any questions, please call me at [redacted]Sincerely,Charles [redacted]Charles [redacted]Claims Manager

[redacted] [redacted]September 6, 2017Revdex.com2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th Fl.Cleveland OH 44115Attn: Lou [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] Customer Name: Deborah F[redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Number: [redacted] Policy Type: Travel Trailer NAIC Number: [redacted] Company Name: Progressive Universal Insurance CompanyMr. [redacted],I’m writing in reply to your email dated August 30, 2017.I’m sorry that our customer doesn’t agree with our claims decision. I’ve reviewed her follow-up concerns and our file to explain our claim handling. I hope this information is helpful.Regarding the lack of structural flaw or breakdown, we pursued this with our customer’s express written authorization, to get the manufacturer involved in the process and possibly eliminate an obvious vector for any future recurring cracks.  The lack of a structural flaw or breakdown doesn’t negate the fact that this fifth wheel trailer didn’t successfully negotiate the rigors of normal road use without showing the limitations of its construction by generating a stress crack at the exact point where the slide opening was square cut into the bonded sidewall.  When I contacted [redacted], to clarify their position, they stated that they never intended any of their comments to be taken in the light they were. Specifically, that we should and would normally (as an industry standard) cover damages as seen in this claim. The forums that we referred to as a source of information pertaining to the common issues of stress cracks are valid for reference. Our customer did her own research, and when we discussed the denial and the facts of the stress crack, we agreed that this appeared to be a common issue with these types of trailers. Additionally, the manufacturer of her fifth wheel trailer, has in the past paid for stress crack repairs and even has a method to reinforce the framing behind these stress cracks to try to keep them from recurring. We shared that they have begun to manufacture their newer, similar trailers in a manner intended to avoid these stress cracks entirely.  The 2013 manufacture date of the customer’s trailer precludes her from being the recipient of this new process.We understand our customer’s feelings in this matter. Our decision to deny a claim is never taken lightly, but our feelings do not negate the fact that a we do not have a covered loss to this trailer.  Please call me with any questions at [redacted]Sincerely,Sharon D. [redacted]Sharon D. [redacted]Consumer Relations Specialist

October 19, 2017     Revdex.com 2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th Floor Cleveland, OH  44115 Attn: [redacted] Re:     File Number:           [redacted]          ...

Customer Name:      [redacted]           Policy Number:        [redacted]           Policy Type:             Personal Auto           NAIC Number:         [redacted]           Company Name:      Progressive Select Insurance Company     Mr. T[redacted]   I’m writing in reply to your letter dated October 4, 2017. I understand Mr. L[redacted]’s concern with the Multi-Policy discount. I hope this information helps.   I reviewed the phone call in question, and our representative did advise Mr. L[redacted] that his auto policy would benefit from the Multi-Policy discount if he started a homeowners or renters policy with us. That representative made a mistake and I’m sorry for the incorrect information. I’ve provided the appropriate feedback to our representative and her supervisor.   We do offer the Multi-Policy discount when a customer purchases multiple policies for different products that Progressive directly insures. In California, we’re unable to offer the Multi-Policy discount on an auto policy because our current homeowners and renters policy options are associated with us, but are not Progressive affiliated companies.   I’m sorry, but I’m unable to apply the Multi-Policy discount to this policy. I understand that this may mean that Mr. L[redacted] will wish to cancel his auto policy. I’ll notate his policy so that if he wishes to cancel during this policy period, we will waive the Cancel fee.   I know this isn’t what Mr. L[redacted] wants to hear and I wish I had better news. If you have any questions, please call me at [redacted].   Sincerely,   [redacted]   [redacted] Consumer Relations Specialist Tell us why here...

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.  I believe the information you have is incorrect. My policy renewal dates are May 10,2015 and November 10, 2015. There was definately a total of 75 days worth of data since I started using the snapshot on February 2, 2015 and my policy renewal date of May 10, 2015.  I calculated a total of 98 days between those two dates so the permanent discount should have been applied. 
Regards,
[redacted]

May 2, 2016Revdex.com2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH 44115-2408Attn: Aisha [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] Customer Name: [redacted] Policy Number: [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Type: Personal Auto NAIC Number: [redacted] Company Name: Progressive Direct...

Insurance CompanyMs. [redacted],I’m responding to your letter dated April 21, 2016. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the situation.Claim Chronology:April 2 Loss reported to us by [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] reports that an unknown party struck her vehicle head on in [redacted], Ohio, and fled the scene.     Ms. [redacted] reports that she was unable to obtain a license plate number or any other identifying characteristics. She states that she and her minor son were in her vehicle at the time of the loss.   Ms. [redacted] reports that she is not feeling well and would like a call back at another time to give a recorded interview regarding the accident.April 3 We contact Ms. [redacted]. She gives a recorded interview describing the details surrounding the loss. She states that an older, white Taurus struck the front of her vehicle and fled the scene. [redacted] Police took a report at the police station. She stated that they had advised her that they would review the video. Ms. [redacted] confirmed she took herself to West [redacted] Medical Center as she is pregnant as well as her knee was swollen. Ms. [redacted] states that the police were to follow up with her upon review of the video.April 7 We secure a copy of the [redacted] Police Report. There is no information for the unknown white vehicle or driver that fled the scene of the accident. We contact the [redacted] Police Department, District One. The receptionist advises she is busy and requests a call back to research the incident.   We contact Officer [redacted] with [redacted] Police Investigations. Officer [redacted] reviews the notes and indicates it is a closed case. He states there are no notes to indicate that a video had been reviewed. He also states that typically the video does not show license plates. He states that he can check with Officer [redacted] who took the report to confirm whether there is any video that can be reviewed.   We attempt to contact Officer [redacted] and are advised that he is out of the office until April 11, 2016. We determine that the unknown party is 100 percent liable for the loss based on the recorded interview and [redacted] Police report.April 11 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. A message is left for a return call.April 12 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. The receptionist advises that she thinks that Officer [redacted] is in training and may not receive the message. Ms. [redacted] leaves a message for us. We attempt to return the call and leave a voicemail for Ms. [redacted].April 13 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. The receptionist advised that        Officer [redacted] was off duty.April 14 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. The receptionist advised that        Officer [redacted] was off duty.April 15 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. The receptionist advised that        Officer [redacted] was off duty.April 16 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. The receptionist advised that Officer [redacted] was off duty and would not be back until Monday, April 18, 2016.April 18 We attempt to contact Officer [redacted]. A message is left for a return call. Officer [redacted] returns our call. He confirms that Ms. [redacted] made a police report at the [redacted] District One Police Department. He states that he would never have told Ms. [redacted] that there was a video. Officer [redacted] states there is no video of the accident and there is no information regarding the other vehicle or the other driver. He confirms the case is closed.April 19 We speak with Ms. [redacted] to request an inspection of her 1999 Jeep Wrangler. She requests all future correspondence be sent through email. We send a letter to Ms. [redacted] requesting an inspection of her vehicle. We deny coverage application of Uninsured Motorist Property Damage for the damage to Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle, as there is no information to identify the other party liable for the damages to Ms. [redacted]’s Jeep.  Per our Auto Policy, 9611- (04/14), Exclusions, “Coverage under this Part III will not apply; #5.  If the uninsured motorist has not been identified.” Our supervisor speaks with Ms. [redacted] per her request. We apologize for          Ms. [redacted]’s frustration with the claim and further explain the difference between Uninsured Motorist Property Damage (UMPD) and Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury (UMBI) coverage. UMPD does require that the identity of the other party responsible for the loss be known and that they be uninsured. We further detailed more information about UMBI. Ms. [redacted] became upset and disconnected the call. We send a Denial Letter of UMPD to Ms. [redacted]. We send a Reservation of Rights Letter to Ms. [redacted] requesting contact with her minor son,          [redacted] Phillips-[redacted], and pictures of her vehicle in order to complete the UMBI coverage investigation.April 20 Ms. [redacted]’s daughter brings her 1999 Jeep to the Sharonville, Ohio Service Center for an inspection. At the same time, a supervisor speaks with Ms. [redacted] explaining the UMPD coverage denial. An appointment is made for later that same day to speak with her 15-year-old son with her permission regarding the details surrounding the accident. We provide Ms. [redacted]’s daughter a copy of the Policy Contract, underlining the applicable UMPD language for her review.We obtain a recorded interview from [redacted] Phillips-[redacted]. Mr. Phillips-[redacted] describes the same facts surrounding the accident of April 1, 2016.Our supervisor meets with Ms. [redacted] in person who plays a voicemail from Sergeant [redacted] of the [redacted]ti Police Department advising he reviewed a twenty-minute video and did not see any footage of the accident. Our supervisor advises Ms. [redacted] that we will attempt to follow up with Sergeant [redacted] for a status of the investigation.We attempt to contact Sergeant [redacted]. A message is left for a return call.April 21 Sergeant [redacted] leaves us a voicemail. We attempt to return his call. A message is left for a return call.Ms. [redacted] contacts our supervisor to state that she has contacted the mayor’s office. She advised they are having the captain at the [redacted] Police Department look into potential video of the accident.  We confirm the investigation into UMBI coverage is complete and coverage will be provided.                Ms. [redacted]’s injury claim is transferred to an injury representative.Our injury representative contacts Ms. [redacted] regarding her injury claim.      Ms. [redacted] explains that she is seven months pregnant and injured her knee and her chest in the accident. Ms. [redacted] confirms going to UC West [redacted] Hospital the day after the accident. She states that she is doing ok. She is following up with her obstetrician for an already scheduled appointment the following day. We offer to resolve her UMBI claim for $1,500 plus her medical bills. She indicates she wishes to wait until she follows up with her doctor. We agree to follow up with her the following week.Because the identity of the at-fault driver is unknown, there is no UMPD coverage available under Ms. [redacted]’s automobile policy. Ms. [redacted] does not carry Collision coverage. She does qualify for UMBI based on the coverage terms of the Policy Contract. The policy requires different expectations of evidence regarding the at-fault party for the two different coverages. When Ms. [redacted] is ready to resolve her open injury claim, we’ll be happy to work towards an amicable settlement.Sincerely,Debra B[redacted]Debra B[redacted]Claims Manager

February 12, 2016Revdex.com 2800 Euclid Avenue, 4th FloorCleveland, OH  44115 Attn: [redacted]Re: File Number: [redacted] Customer Name: [redacted] Policy Number: [redacted] Claim Number: [redacted] Policy Type: Motorcycle NAIC Number: [redacted] Company...

Name: Progressive Michigan Insurance Company Ms. [redacted],I’m writing in response to your letter dated February 5, 2016. I appreciate the opportunity to address Ms. [redacted]’ concerns about her claim and clarify the situation.On August 2, 2015, Ms. [redacted] reported vandalism occurred at the [redacted] in [redacted], Michigan. Ms. [redacted] also reported that she had polished and waxed her 2009 [redacted] prior to taking the trip, and no damage was noticed when those activities took place. Ms. [redacted] reported her claim to us on January 7, 2016, at 12:53 p.m. through our electronic reporting application and listed the accident location as a [redacted], Michigan at approximately 11:00 p.m. on August 1, 2015. In the report to us, Ms. [redacted] indicated she is unsure of what happened and did not notice the damage immediately, as it was dark when she left the hotel the following morning. She indicated she heard an odd noise and the [redacted] was driving oddly. She thought a mechanical problem had occurred or possibly bad gas. Ms. [redacted] indicated she drove the vehicle home and parked in the garage, which is the normal location for the motorcycle, and that was the last time she drove the [redacted] in 2015.Ms. [redacted] indicated that over the weekend, her husband went into the garage to pull the [redacted] out to move some things around and noticed damage on the [redacted]. She reported damages on the [redacted] of a bent fender into the wheel and reported that must have been why she and her husband heard the odd noise when driving it home and why the [redacted] was driving oddly. Ms. [redacted] also reported that she was “not sure if someone had hit the [redacted] or if it was vandalized because there are several areas of damage that are not necessarily consistent with it being struck only once. The damage is on more than one side; it is erratic.”On January 7, 2016, we assigned Ms. [redacted]’ claim to Eric U**, who contacted Ms. [redacted] the same day. Ms. [redacted] requested that Mr. U** call her husband, [redacted], to review the claim in more detail. Mr. U** attempted to speak with [redacted], but he indicated it was not a good time and arranged to speak with him on January 8, 2016.On January 8, 2016, Mr. Ure obtained additional details relating to the claim from Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] told Mr. Ure that be believed the location of the loss was the [redacted] in [redacted], Michigan on either August 1, 2015, or August 2,2015. Mr. [redacted] indicated that he and Ms. [redacted] drove up to meet their family for an event at the [redacted]. They left between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. the next morning to go home. Mr. [redacted] indicated that on the way home, the [redacted] was riding rough and he thought he might have received bad gas when they filled up prior to the family event. Mr. [redacted] indicated he was able to get the [redacted] home and parked it in the garage. Mr. [redacted] indicated that two days after getting home from the family event, he went up north to his cabin and had only been home for about two weeks since then. Mr. [redacted] indicated he only noticed the damage the night of January 6, 2016. He indicated that the [redacted] was parked next to Ms. [redacted]’ motorcycle in the garage, and he went to move some things around and noticed the damage. Mr. [redacted] indicated nothing had fallen on the [redacted] and it had not fallen down. Mr. [redacted] advised Mr. U** the damages on the [redacted] are spaced out and it did not look like someone hit the [redacted] once. He was not certain if it was hit multiple times and then picked up or if someone may have kicked it. No police report was made.On January 21, 2016, our Representative Keith M[redacted] completed an inspection of the 2009 [redacted] at [redacted], Michigan [redacted]. He identified multiple areas of damage to the [redacted] to include the front fender, the rear fender, the tail light, the front passing lamp rings, the headlamp ring, the right slider cover, the windshield, the right lamp on the tour pack, the fuel tank and the upper heat shield. Mr. M[redacted] did not see any indication that the [redacted] had fallen over and indicated there appeared to be multiple areas of damage that would require multiple claims. Mr. M[redacted] called Mr. [redacted] to discuss the damages identified at the inspection. Mr. [redacted] indicated that all damages happened at the same time. Mr. M[redacted] explained that the damages are not consistent with all being damaged at the same time and advised Mr. [redacted] he would have the claim reviewed by management.Two leaders reviewed the inspection photos and spoke to Mr. M[redacted], who inspected the [redacted]. Both agreed the damages did not all occur at the same time and that multiple claims would need to be reported to have all damages resolved. Mr. U** spoke with Ms. [redacted] and advised her that damages on the bike were not consistent with all occurring at the same time. Mr. U** indicated coverage exists to pay for the damages, but she needed to report additional claims for all the damages.On January 22, 2016, Mr. U** called Ms. [redacted] to discuss the claim further. He advised Ms. [redacted] that he spoke with Mr. M[redacted], who inspected the [redacted], and based on the damage locations and the type of damage, there appears to be three separate claims; one for the rear fender, light covers and exhaust, a second claim for the gas tank and heat shield and a third claim for the front lamp damage.  Ms. [redacted] indicated that was not acceptable and requested email pictures of the damages so she could review with her attorney. We emailed photos to Ms. [redacted] as requested.We’ve explained to Ms. [redacted] that coverage exists for the [redacted]. However, in order to address all reported damages, three separate claims would have to be reported, as our assessment indicates three separate events took place to cause the damages and that all reported damages did not occur as a result of one vandalism event based on the type of damages presented.If you have additional questions, please call me at 1-269-459-3457.Sincerely,Kristine Y[redacted]Kristine Y[redacted]Claims Manager

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.I spoke with Eric and the proposed solutions are not real solutions. They are telling me that I should go back to [redacted], which I am not comfortable with. They want me to go to [redacted] to fight for their money back before funding another repair shop to fix the vehicle. In addition, they offered no solution relating to the rental car, stating that is the way it is.It really goes back to the key issue, which Erick admitted to in our conversation, and that is that Progressive cut corners at the initial repair. Why wouldn't they cut corners, if the repercussions of such are costs incurred by their customer instead of them. This attempt to get around a quality repair is what caused this whole issue. Had they not done this, my car would have never gone to the shop a 2nd time, at which this event happened with the owner. My rental car would have been well within the parameters of my policy. Instead they cut a corner, now I still have a damaged vehicle and am out $315.76 for the rental. 
Regards,
Patrick [redacted]