Riverside Jewelry & Loan

[redacted] TO WHOM IT MAY CONERN: This is our company’s response to compliant referenced above I think it is important to understand the circumstances leading up the purchase on April 1, referenced in the compliant This concerned a situation that really started when the original home policy was first renewing in February of this year Again, I think knowing what lead up to the situation stated in the complaint is critical This original policy and coverage was written for [redacted] and [redacted] by our agency, Van Zandt, Emrich and ***, and underwriter by [redacted] Insurance Company The policy was due to renew on February 21, - the billing went out January 18, A warning notice was sent on February stating payment had still not be received and payment must be postmarked by March 13, in order to prevent cancellation of the policy On March 6, 2015, Mr [redacted] called to advice that he had received the warning notice and stated he would be sending or payment monthly payments because the house was for sale My office advised him to send payment that day because the policy was in a warning status A payment was mailed and postmarked on March 17, almost two weeks from his call when he was advised to send payment immediately As mentioned above, a notice was sent to the client that stated coverage would cancel if payment was not postmarked by March 13, 2015, so indeed the policy canceled On March 31, Mr [redacted] called to tell us his payment must have been sent late because he received a notice the policy had canceled During this call he stated he was having some trouble with the mail because it was being forwarded due to the fact they had moved to [redacted] , their house in [redacted] was for sale and nobody was living there [redacted] was not willing to reinstate due to the lapse in coverage and the fact the home was for sale Our only option for coverage at this time was through a broker called [redacted] who gave us a quote with [redacted] We did tell them at that point what Mr [redacted] had told us that the house was for sale, they were in [redacted] and nobody was living there We received the [redacted] quote from [redacted] on March and called Mr [redacted] leaving a message with the quote He called back and was not very happy with the quote saying he felt it was a poor excuse, but he called back giving us the checking account info in order to get coverage placed At that point, he knew the premium and he knew why it was so high saying it was a poor excuse He then explained it really wasn’t vacant, but unfortunately, this was our best option On April 6, Mrs [redacted] called upset, but was told by [redacted] that this was our best option She called again on April upset that she had received another bill, but when my office spoke with [redacted] we were told the initial payment had been rejected by the bank She was then advised that payment had to be made within days by phone or this policy was in jeopardy Mrs [redacted] contends that she should have not been paying for a vacant policy because we were never told that nobody was living there My office had no reason to make up what was told to us on March when Mr [redacted] explained to us why they were having trouble getting the mail Obtaining this type policy through a broker only creates more work for us and frankly, compensation on this type policy through a broker is even less, so we have no incentive to work harder for less compensation In summary, on March 31, Mr [redacted] was told the quoted premium was high do to the vacancy, but he still gave us the bank info to process the quoted premium Mrs [redacted] called on April upset with what she thought was a second bill, but it was because the first payment was rejected She called [redacted] directly to get this payment made The amount of the payment never changed from the time the quote was given to Mr [redacted] on March and it was explained as to why it was high I’m not sure how they can now say it was not clear The [redacted] were long time loyal clients of this agency Unfortunately, there are circumstances at times that limit what options we as agents have to offer our clients Sincerely, [redacted] Vice President / COO Van Zandt Emrich & ***, Inc [redacted] ***

[redacted]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONERN:
This is our company’s response to compliant referenced above.  I think it is important to understand the circumstances leading up...

the purchase on April 1, 2015 referenced in the compliant.
This concerned a situation that really started when the original home policy was first renewing in February of this year.  Again, I think knowing what lead up to the situation stated in the complaint is critical.
This original policy and coverage was written for [redacted] and [redacted] by our agency, Van Zandt, Emrich and [redacted], and underwriter by [redacted] Insurance Company.   The policy was due to renew on February 21, 2015 - the billing went out January 18, 2015.   A warning notice was sent on February 17 stating payment had still not be received and payment must be postmarked by March 13, 2015 in order to prevent cancellation of the policy.
On March 6, 2015, Mr. [redacted] called to advice that he had received the warning notice and stated he would be sending 2 or 3 payment monthly payments because the house was for sale.  My office advised him to send payment that day because the policy was in a warning status. 
A payment was mailed and postmarked on March 17, 2015 almost two weeks from his call when he was advised to send payment immediately.  As mentioned above, a notice was sent to the client that stated coverage would cancel if payment was not postmarked by March 13, 2015, so indeed the policy canceled.  
On March 31, Mr. [redacted] called to tell us his payment must have been sent late because he received a notice the policy had canceled.   During this call he stated he was having some trouble with the mail because it was being forwarded due to the fact they had moved to [redacted], their house in [redacted] was for sale and nobody was living there. 
[redacted] was not willing to reinstate due to the lapse in coverage and the fact the home was for sale.  Our only option for coverage at this time was through a broker called [redacted] who gave us a quote with [redacted].  We did tell them at that point what Mr. [redacted] had told us that the house was for sale, they were in [redacted] and nobody was living there.  We received the [redacted] quote from [redacted] on March 31 and called Mr. [redacted] leaving a message with the quote.
He called back and was not very happy with the quote saying he felt it was a poor excuse, but he called back giving us the checking account info in order to get coverage placed.  At that point, he knew the premium and he knew why it was so high saying it was a poor excuse.  He then explained it really wasn’t vacant, but unfortunately, this was our best option.   
On April 6, Mrs. [redacted] called upset, but was told by [redacted] that this was our best option.  She called again on April 15 upset that she had received another bill, but when my office spoke with [redacted] we were told the initial payment had been rejected by the bank.  She was then advised that payment had to be made within 2 days by phone or this policy was in jeopardy.
Mrs. [redacted] contends that she should have not been paying for a vacant policy because we were never told that nobody was living there.  My office had no reason to make up what was told to us on March 31 when Mr. [redacted] explained to us why they were having trouble getting the mail.  Obtaining this type policy through a broker only creates more work for us and frankly, compensation on this type policy through a broker is even less, so we have no incentive to work harder for less compensation.
In summary, on March 31, Mr. [redacted] was told the quoted premium was high do to the vacancy, but he still gave us the bank info to process the quoted premium.  Mrs. [redacted] called on April 15 upset with what she thought was a second bill, but it was because the first payment was rejected.  She called [redacted] directly to get this payment made.  The amount of the payment never changed from the time the quote was given to Mr. [redacted] on March 31 and it was explained as to why it was high.  I’m not sure how they can now say it was not clear. 
 The [redacted] were long time loyal clients of this agency.  Unfortunately, there are circumstances at times that limit what options we as agents have to offer our clients. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Vice President / COO
Van Zandt Emrich & [redacted], Inc.
[redacted]