Reed Brothers Insurance Group

[redacted] , IncThe insured first advised that they were closing her business, but still needed equipment coveredShe would be moving and possibly starting up another businessShe inquired if equipment would be covered while moving and our office advised that it would be coveredSeveral calls were taken place between the customer and [redacted] & [redacted] agents to make sure the scanners that [redacted] was shipping were covered under their Commerical Inland Marine policyThe customer never stated to either [redacted] & [redacted] agent that the scanner was being soldOnce the property was sold, it would no longer be in the care, custody, or control to the owner of the policyWhich would mean that the scanner that was sold on 9/9/2015, would not be covered under the policyThe insured stated that the loss date was 09/28/and the claim was filed 10/2/ A claim was sent in to Auto-Owners regarding the issue stated aboveAuto-Owners has since denied the claim because the scanner was soldThe issue has been sent to [redacted] & [redacted] Corporate Legal department to review our work in the officeTheir answer was the [redacted] & [redacted] has no role or influence over claim decisionsIf the customer had a problem with the claim decision, they needed to then take that up with the adjuster

I have reviewed the reponse that was made in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. The claim was sent in to Auto-Owners and is in reference to scanner with serial number 001207. We have established that the customer called about a scanner with a different serial number, and both of them were in fact covered under the inland marine policy. I have attached a phone conversation that one of our agents typed up while being on the phone with the adjuster on 10/21/2015. The adjuster himself advised “there is some discrepency with what I (the agent) and what the insured advised him.” Under an inland marine policy, anything that is transported and listed on the policy would be covered in transit. The reason both of our agents told the customer that the scanners would be covered is she said would it be covered during their move to Colorado. During a personal and business move to Colorado, the ownership was still theirs.  However, the customer advised the adjuster they sold the scanner and it was damaged upon arrival to the receipient. Once an item is sold, it is no longer under “care, custody, or control,” of the customer. Which is the reasoning behind why the claim was denied. A letter was sent out by the adjuster to the customer stating all of this information. As mentioned in my first response, our legal department did look over in detail every extent of this claim. They advised me to let the customer know that if they had a problem with the outcome of the claim, that they would need to contact the adjuster. In the same phone conversation mentioned above, with the adjuster, the insured advised our office that she had never received payment for the scanner. On the other hand, she advised the adjuster she had received payment but had refunded it. In the 10/16/2015 email that the customer attached to the prior response, she gave us the “potential” buyer phone number. The adjuster said it correctly when he said there are discrepencies with the stories. I am sure that the customer wanted a refund on the sale of the scanner when it arrived to him in an unusable manner. I have also attached an email that the customer stated all of the information of how the scanner was received to him.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[redacted] Brothers states that coverage was denied because the scanner that was broken during FedEx shipment had been sold.  This scanner was never sold, and [redacted] Brothers was informed of that fact several times (see attachment email to [redacted] Brothers agents specifically stating that the scanner was never sold).  [redacted] Brothers' response is totally factually incorrect.  [redacted] never sold this scanner and can prove this fact easily if requested to do so.  [redacted] has always owned and still owns the scanner in question.I am attaching an email from an agent at [redacted] Brothers in which I inquired whether specific types of equipment would be covered by the policy during shipment by UPS type shippers, and the reply was that they would be covered.  That particular email (dated 9/9/15) is in reference to a DIFFERENT scanner which was in fact sold. At a later date I shipped ANOTHER scanner via FedEx and it was destroyed during shipment.  I did not insure this scanner with FedEx specifically because I relied on the advice given earlier by [redacted] Brothers agents (two separate agents) who told me they reviewed the policy and that all pieces of equipment that were listed on the schedule attached to the policy would be covered during shipping by such a carrier.  This particular scanner (as well as the scanner that was sold earlier) were both listed on this schedule.  Upon learning that this scanner was destroyed during shipment I contacted [redacted] Brothers and they filed the claim for me with Auto Owners.  As I read the rejection letter from Auto Owners, they are not denying the claim because they believed the scanner was sold, but instead because once it was shipped via FedEx it was out of my custody and control.My claim against [redacted] Brothers is that two of their agents gave me absolutely incorrect advice upon which I based an important financial decision.  They both stated that coverage would be provided during shipment - one of them via telephone and the other via written communication (see attached email).  That is in fact bad advice, as is evidenced by Auto Owners' denial of the claim.[redacted] Brothers/[redacted] & [redacted] purport to be experts in advising the public about which policies to purchase and WHAT THOSE POLICIES COVER.  Their agents were absolutely derelict in their duty, and as a result I am out the money I would have had if they had given me the correct advice.  I look to [redacted] Brothers to cover that loss.I am attaching a copy of the letter I sent to [redacted] Brothers/[redacted] & [redacted] (their parent company) as well as the rejection letter from Auto Owners.[redacted] Associates, Inc.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted], Inc. The insured first advised that they were closing her business, but still needed equipment covered. She would be moving and possibly starting up another business. She inquired if equipment would be covered while moving and our office advised that it would be covered. Several...

calls were taken place between the customer and [redacted] & [redacted] agents to make sure the scanners that [redacted] was shipping were covered under their Commerical Inland Marine policy. The customer never stated to either [redacted] & [redacted] agent that the scanner was being sold. Once the property was sold, it would no longer be in the care, custody, or control to the owner of the policy. Which would mean that the scanner that was sold on 9/9/2015, would not be covered under the policy. The insured stated that the loss date was 09/28/2015 and the claim was filed 10/2/2015.   A claim was sent in to Auto-Owners regarding the issue stated above. Auto-Owners has since denied the claim because the scanner was sold. The issue has been sent to [redacted] & [redacted] Corporate Legal department to review our work in the office. Their answer was the [redacted] & [redacted] has no role or influence over claim decisions. If the customer had a problem with the claim decision, they needed to then take that up with the adjuster.