Robert Moreno Insurance Services

We understand that the only satisfactory outcome, from your point of view, is for us to pay for the damage to [redacted] Unfortunately, you have not met your burden of proof As you are alleging that, as a result of the insured’s negligence, he caused damage to Sara’s vehicle, you need to prove he was responsible You have both made verbal and written statements Those statements are in conflict and neither prove nor disprove the insured’s negligence The statements cancel each other out There is physical damage to both vehicles That damage could have been caused by you striking the rear of the insured’s vehicle just the same as the insured backing into your vehicle The physical damage cancel each other out There are no independent witnesses to corroborate either your version of the loss or the insured’s version of the loss The preponderance of the evidence must show that your version of the loss is more likely to be true than the insured’s vehicle As demonstrated, your version of the loss is just as likely to be true as the insured’s version of the loss Again, you have not met your burden of proof [redacted] * [redacted] / [redacted] Style Definitions */

Mr [redacted] ,Your concern, submitted through the Revdex.com, has been received and reviewed Please note that our response to this concern is being submitted in conjunction with the request for assistance that you have submitted to the California Department of Insurance.Based on your request, it appears you feel a portion of your claim has been improperly denied or rejected Specifically, our office has found that the damage to the left front wheel hub and bearing are not related to the above referenced loss.This loss involves damage to your Nissan Versa, which was parked along a curb, and struck by another vehicle The point of impact was to the left rear of your vehicle, pushing the right rear wheel against the curb In total, our office has paid $7,in order to repair the damages to your vehicle, consisting of loss related damage to the left side quarter panel, left side door and center pillar, right rear body and right rear suspension, and both left and right rear wheels.During the course of the claim, our office has inspected your vehicle three times: 2/24/– vehicle inspected while parked along the curb at the scene of the loss Vehicle was hit at the left rear and pushed up against the curb at the right rear No front end damage is noted, including the left front wheel 3/19/– vehicle inspected at Auto Body, after teardown to expose all damage, and after receipt of the repair shops estimate for requested additional repairs No damage noted or found by the appraiser or the repair shop to the left front wheel or any front end suspension items 4/23/– vehicle inspected at Nissan of Van Nuys to address a “whirling noise” coming from the rear end of the vehicle As per the dealership diagnosis, the noise is coming from the left front hub and bearing The vehicle was taken to the dealership with no wheel covers so the appraiser was unable to inspect the left front wheel cover for new damage Based on the information in our file, the damage to the left front wheel hub and bearing is not related to the damaged caused by the left rear impact The left front was not impacted at the time of the loss No damage was visible to the left front wheel cover No other damage was found to either the left or right front suspension, even after a four wheel alignment was performed The wheel cover was not left with the dealership at the time of our third inspection, and the vehicle had travelled over miles since the final repairs at Auto Body It is also evident that there have been repairs performed to the left hinge post prior to this loss This being the case, it appears that the partial denial in question is accurate and fair We hope that this letter provides you with the information requested Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns Sincerely, [redacted] Physical Damage Supervisor [redacted] , ext***

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.
Regards,
[redacted]
This response is a complete lie. I provided in detail to the business what had happened at the time of the accident. In fact, upon exiting the vehicle the client of the business immediately offered to pay for the damages right there. I responded by saying that I wasn't sure what the extent of the damage was. I needed to have a third party look at the damage and give me a quote to repair it. If I was responsible for the damage and caused the accident why did the client not ask for my license and insurance information at the time of the accident? He gave me his and I was the one who filled the claim with [redacted] Insurance Services. The result of their findings is completely unsatisfactory. The damage to my vehicle is estimated at $600. So much is wrong with how this company handled the claim. After I submitted the necessary paperwork to [redacted] I called him to followup. He told me that the paperwork filed by the other driver was incomplete and all it said that he was rear ended in a parking lot. [redacted] said that it wasn't nearly as descriptive as mine and he needed more info. I then called back a week or so later. [redacted] told me that he still was trying to get a hold of the other driver to get a more detailed statement. During that same call he told me that they have to back their client and not reimburse me for damages. If I did hit him and he's saying that there is damage to his car, like it does in [redacted]'s response, why isn't he coming after me for the damages? Makes you think right? [redacted] Insurance Services had no intention since day one to reimburse me for damages done to my car. I'm just trying to do the right thing. I'm just an honest person looking to get money for damage that was done to my car. I have done everything that I was asked by [redacted] and [redacted] Insurance Services. They need to now step up and do what's right.

Based on your request, it appears you believe there has been
undue delay in the handling of your claim and that calls and emails are not
returned.
While your request for assistance indicates you had been
trying to resolve the claim in excess of one month, our file reflects that
after...

receipt of the notice of this loss on 10/14/15, our office inspected your
damages, obtained your statement, evaluated the vehicle as a total loss, and
sent our offer of settlement to you on 11/5/15, which is 23 days after report
of the loss.  Total loss documents were
included in our offer that required your signature and the return of the
documents thereafter.
Upon receipt of the necessary information from your lien
holder on 11/17/15, our office sent payment to [redacted] Dealer Services on
11/19/15.  The necessary total loss
settlement documents were not received from you until 12/7/15.
In regards to your allegations regarding a lack of return
calls and a lack of response to email correspondence, our records reflect telephone
communication with you or the insured driver on 10/15/15, 10/19/15, 10/23/15
and 10/28/15 via your insurance broker; our file also reflects email
correspondence with you on 11/4/15, 11/6/15 and 11/11/15.
Total loss claims sometimes are a bit prolonged due to
needed paperwork, which includes dependence on lien holder response, and it
does not appear that there was any undue delay in the handling of your
claim. 
As to a credit for any unused premium, this issue will be
accounted for once you have removed the vehicle from the policy if you have not
yet done so.  Attached is a separate
letter which explains this process and is normally sent out once the necessary
total loss settlement documents are in file.
We appreciate you as a customer and hope that we can continue to serve you.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Physical Damage Supervisor
714/[redacted] ext. [redacted]
cc:
California Department of Insurance/[redacted]/Enclosure
Americas Insurance Company/S[redacted] Insurance Svcs. /[redacted]

Mr. [redacted],Your concern, submitted through the Revdex.com, has been received and reviewed.  Please note that our response to this concern is being submitted in...

conjunction with the request for assistance that you have submitted to the California Department of Insurance.Based on your request, it appears you feel a portion of your
claim has been improperly denied or rejected. 
Specifically, our office has found that the damage to the left front
wheel hub and bearing are not related to the above referenced loss.This loss involves damage to your 2014 Nissan Versa, which
was parked along a curb, and struck by another vehicle.  The point of impact was to the left rear of
your vehicle, pushing the right rear wheel against the curb.  In total, our office has paid $7,628.94 in
order to repair the damages to your vehicle, consisting of loss related damage
to the left side quarter panel, left side door and center pillar, right rear
body and right rear suspension, and both left and right rear wheels.During the course of the claim, our office has inspected
your vehicle three times:
2/24/15 –
vehicle inspected while parked along the curb at the scene of the loss.  Vehicle was hit at the left rear and
pushed up against the curb at the right rear.  No front end damage is noted, including
the left front wheel.
3/19/15 –
vehicle inspected at 26 Auto Body, after teardown to expose all damage,
and after receipt of the repair shops estimate for requested additional
repairs.  No damage noted or found
by the appraiser or the repair shop to the left front wheel or any front
end suspension items.
4/23/15 –
vehicle inspected at Nissan of Van Nuys to address a “whirling noise”
coming from the rear end of the vehicle. 
As per the dealership diagnosis, the noise is coming from the left
front hub and bearing.  The vehicle
was taken to the dealership with no wheel covers so the appraiser was
unable to inspect the left front wheel cover for new damage.
Based on the information in our file, the damage to the left
front wheel hub and bearing is not related to the damaged caused by the left
rear impact.  The left front was not
impacted at the time of the loss.  No
damage was visible to the left front wheel cover.  No other damage was found to either the left
or right front suspension, even after a four wheel alignment was
performed.  The wheel cover was not left
with the dealership at the time of our third inspection, and the vehicle had
travelled over 200 miles since the final repairs at 26 Auto Body.  It is also evident that there have been
repairs performed to the left hinge post prior to this loss.          
This being the case, it appears that the partial denial in
question is accurate and fair.
We hope that this letter provides you with the information
requested.  Please feel free to contact
me if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
 
 
[redacted]
Physical Damage Supervisor
[redacted], ext. [redacted]

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.
[My consent was never given for a new policy to be opened with a different insurance company. My broker provided me with a document that states that my insurance with (Robert Moreno Insurance) was **ncelled since February 20, 2016. The deceleration of my new insurance with All State faxed over to Rober Moreno Insurance lists the 2015 [redacted] and 2005 Chevy Subarban with full coverage, leaving the 1998 Chevy Silverado with liability insurance. I have confirmed my coverage with Allstate, and my coverage is as said above. The check of $74 sent to cover the premium is not what was drafted from my account. From February 2016 to December 2016 over $2.000.00 were drafted from my account by Rober Moreno Insurance. Regards,
[redacted]

We understand that the only
satisfactory outcome, from your point of view, is for us to pay for the damage
to [redacted]. Unfortunately, you have not met
your burden of proof. As you are alleging that, as a result of the
insured's negligence, he caused damage to Sara's vehicle, you need to prove he
was responsible. You have both made verbal and written statements.
Those statements are in conflict and neither prove nor disprove the insured's
negligence. The statements cancel each other out. There is physical
damage to both vehicles. That damage could have been caused by you
striking the rear of the insured's vehicle just the same as the insured backing
into your vehicle. The physical damage cancel each other out. There
are no independent witnesses to corroborate either your version of the loss or
the insured's version of the loss. The preponderance of the evidence must
show that your version of the loss is more likely to be true than the insured's
vehicle. As demonstrated, your version of the loss is just as likely to
be true as the insured's version of the loss. Again, you have not met
your burden of proof.
[redacted]

The loss was reported to Robert Moreno Insurance Services on 06/28/17 and assigned to a liability adjuster and collision adjuster on 06/29/17.  Both adjusters attempted contact with Ms. [redacted]l on the date of assignment.  After inspection, Ms. M[redacted]'s vehicle was deemed a total loss....

 She was notified by the salvage department on 07/05/17.  The vehicle was released from the shop and picked-up by the salvage company.  We received confirmation of the pick-up on 07/11/17.  The total loss documents were mailed to the insured on 07/17/17.  On 07/19/17, I had a long telephone conversation with Ms. M[redacted] regarding the total loss process and addressed many of the concerns raised in her complaint with her on the telephone.  On 07/24/17, we received the title guarantee from Nissan as well as the signed DMV documents from Ms. M[redacted].  on 07/26/17, we mailed the lienholder and Ms. M[redacted] their respective payments.  The total loss was resolved in less than 30 days from notice of loss. [redacted] J. [redacted]Claims ManagerRobert Moreno Insurance Services

We secured a written statement from our insured.
In
addition, the insured provided photographs of the damage to his [redacted]
Accord. In his signed statement, the insured stated that he was
rear-ended while he was stopped in a parking lot. The photographs show a
minor paint transfer on the insured's rear bumper cover, above the
exhaust. According to your signed statement, your were stopped in an
aisle of a parking lot as the insured completed his maneuver. "At that
time he put it in drive. Then all of the sudden he put it in reverse when
it was not necessary and hit the gas and backed in to the drivers front side at
a high rate of speed." We completed an inspection of [redacted]. The point of impact was the front bumper cover, on
the driver's side. There were no independent witnesses and the physical
damage could easily support either version of the loss. Based thereon, we
denied liability for the loss
[redacted]

Review: HI.. my name is [redacted] I have this insurance for three years , now my car was vandalism... so I called the insurance company .. and the [redacted] insurance.. told them what happen ... so [redacted] told me to file a complaint to the police department...then will help u.. now after 2mth later there are telling me that ill just pay $200.00,, and u can pay from ur deductible for 500... so u can get it fix .... and there are telling me that my car was fix befor.. on the damages caused befor... when the order insurance .. paid for it when she back into my car .. as a hit n run ... but she called me and tok care of my car .. but now when my car is vandalis [redacted] insurance wants to pay me $200.00.. and say u got the money from the damage befor ... wel y cant there just fix it .. I m old n worries me a lot to get my car fix ... when u want to talk to them there should at you ... so can any one help me .... can a manger for [redacted] insurance call me on 7329004682 any time ... fix my carDesired Settlement: fix my car ... the right hand side need to painted that all I want is get my cay fix ,,, plz get back to me asap ... no... one will paint ur car for $200.00... help my get my car fix

Business

Response:

[redacted]

We are sorry that you experienced confusion concerning the claims you have filed in regards to damage to your insured auto. You recently reported a third claim and it appears that the adjuster was able to explain the situation to you. I will detail it for you as well.

Initially, you filed a claim on 4/12/14 for left side damage to your auto that resulted from a hit and run collision. During our inspection of the left side damages, we found vandalism damage to the right side, which was noted as unrelated damage.

On 6/12/14, you filed a claim for vandalism damage with a date of loss of 6/9/14, with to the right side of the auto. Our inspection revealed that this was the same damage that was visible in the 4/12/14 inspection. There was additional damage that was not visible in the 4/12/14 inspection, and this is the damage that was paid for. The pre-existing right side damage was not paid for as it was unrelated to the reported loss.

On 7/30/14, you reported a vandalism with a date of loss of 1/1/14, in order to collect on the right side damage that was not covered. In your discussions with the adjuster, you admitted that you thought we would be able to cover both separate vandalism losses under one claim, and one deductible. It was explained that each separate loss is subject to a separate deductible, and you agreed.

At this time, we are processing the 1/1/14 loss, and are waiting on your written statement and a copy of the police report.

Please advise if you have any additional questions and, again, we apologize for any confusion.

This insurance company has delayed payment at my repair shop for over 9 weeks. At this time the car has been fixed for 10 days and took 2.5 weeks to fix. This company has been called by myself multiple times per day, and by the repair shop (Lexus Collison Center, Carson CA--[redacted]) multiple times per day...for the last month with no response. My car will not be released until they pay the bill they authorized and are now unwilling to address. I would like my car back, as I am unable to get to work without it...and due to over 9 weeks of paying for rental cars on and off I can no longer afford to pay for them AND the car payment that I am also paying.

In general, stay away! Do not waste your money with a company that has this poor of customer service.

Review: This business is lacking professionalism and communication problems through out the company including their accounting department. We had a situation since April where we were notified that they had not received our payment. The only they did was sent us a letter notifying we no longer had auto insurance. They told they received our check but were unable to post it our account because according to them our policy number was incorrect. So they returned to the check to a broker which was the incorrect one. Then they lost the original check and we had to pay for stop payment at our bank. All this time we were thinking we had insurance up now no one has been able to locate the original check. I cannot comprehend how this company can do business this way. They should not be in business at all.Desired Settlement: We expect the company to compensate us for all the trouble they have put us through. Since I cannot imagine what had happened if were involved a car accident and being covered.

Business

Response:

The insured has had this policy since January 2014. The policy is billed monthly. According to our records, the monthly payments have been late on a regular basis. On May 6, 2014 the payment of primary concern (due April 28, 2014) was remitted with an inaccurate policy number on the check. The accounting staff attempted to look the policy up by name, but the name on the check was not the insured. There was no way to find out what policy the money should be applied to, so the check was returned to the address from which it came. Our accounting department was informed that the insured's broker was to forward the payment. Our system notes that as of May 30, 2014 the payment was not received by the accountant to whom the payment was to be made. On May 30, 2014 our office contacted the broker and got approval to take the payment electronically from the broker's account and the policy was brought to good standing.

Our records show that at some time the party that wrote the check to make the payment that was due on April 28, 2014 (now referring to the check with the wrong policy number) had elected to order a stop-pay on the check. there was a request for reimbursement of $30 for the stop payment request. That request was denied. The fact that the insured or somebody known by the insured submitted inaccurate information that resulted in the inability for that check to be applied as payment to the insured's policy. The check therefore needed to be returned to the address from which it was submitted. This office no longer has the check and the check drafter's need to stop-pay the "lost" check is not the liability of this company. Had the check been submitted with accurate information there would have been no need for the stop-pay as the check would have been applied to the policy immediately upon receipt.

This office was able to work with the broker in order to right the insured's error.

Consumer

Response:

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.

We have had insurance with them for over two years in the first place. And secondly the check was sent to a broker named Fiesta not to the bank from where the check was issued firm since it was a bank online check with a return address from the bank. We did a stop payment by Arequest of a [redacted] at Robert Moreno Insurance.

Regards,

Review: I filled an insurance claim about 2 months ago. I was told to take my car to a shop were they can give me an estimate on how much its goin to cost to fix. Body shop has tried numerous times to contact the insurance company but never get an answere back. I have tried contacting them personally and they do the same I have left tons of voice mails to the person handling my claim and the office manager and no response. I have paid my insurance every month like im suppose to. I am not getting any help from [redacted] Insurance the claim has come to a stand still.Desired Settlement: For them to help me close the claim and fix my car.

Review: I just discover that I had no insurance even with the fact that I have paid the supposed policy premium for the whole year until 1/4/2014, I was pulled over by a police officer and he told me that I have no insurance?I contacted the insurance which sound like they don't exist they don't answer their phone, its just answering machine, and no body would retain the calls.I did contact the agency who sold me the policy with no result either they call [redacted] located at [redacted]Desired Settlement: I want to cancel this insurance any way because they don't exist, they are faked company

Review: Its been a month since my daughter was in a car accident and I'm literally getting the run around with this company. This issue should have resolved 2 weeks ago. Here I am still paying on a car and insurance on a vehicle I don't have. Every time I contact the rep only by email because they never answer the phone, they tell me its been resolved. But, here I am going on a pass a month now clueless......Left numerous emails and phone messages with no results.

claim # [redacted]Desired Settlement: Just want this resolved so I can purchase a new vehicle. Like I stated before still making old car payment and insurance payment.

Business

Response:

Based on your request, it appears you believe there has been

undue delay in the handling of your claim and that calls and emails are not

returned.

While your request for assistance indicates you had been

trying to resolve the claim in excess of one month, our file reflects that

after receipt of the notice of this loss on 10/14/15, our office inspected your

damages, obtained your statement, evaluated the vehicle as a total loss, and

sent our offer of settlement to you on 11/5/15, which is 23 days after report

of the loss. Total loss documents were

included in our offer that required your signature and the return of the

documents thereafter.

Upon receipt of the necessary information from your lien

holder on 11/17/15, our office sent payment to [redacted] Dealer Services on

11/19/15. The necessary total loss

settlement documents were not received from you until 12/7/15.

In regards to your allegations regarding a lack of return

calls and a lack of response to email correspondence, our records reflect telephone

communication with you or the insured driver on 10/15/15, 10/19/15, 10/23/15

and 10/28/15 via your insurance broker; our file also reflects email

correspondence with you on 11/4/15, 11/6/15 and 11/11/15.

Total loss claims sometimes are a bit prolonged due to

needed paperwork, which includes dependence on lien holder response, and it

does not appear that there was any undue delay in the handling of your

claim.

As to a credit for any unused premium, this issue will be

accounted for once you have removed the vehicle from the policy if you have not

yet done so. Attached is a separate

letter which explains this process and is normally sent out once the necessary

total loss settlement documents are in file.

We appreciate you as a customer and hope that we can continue to serve you.

Sincerely,

Physical Damage Supervisor

714/[redacted] ext. [redacted]

cc:

California Department of Insurance/[redacted]/Enclosure

Americas Insurance Company/S[redacted]r/[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] Insurance Svcs. /[redacted]

Review: I have been a customer of Robert Moreno Insurance (RMI) since 2008 and recently received two renewal quotes for my car insurance from them. It was at this time I discovered that RMI was charging me for a SR22 that I no longer needed. One quote listed the line item as a filing fee while the second quote listed it as a SR22 filing fee. This is very misleading and in no way would the customer know that they are being charged for something they no longer need if it is not clearly identified. I contacted RMI to request a refund for the over payment in 2012 and 2013. The customer service rep placed me on hold while she spoke with a supervisor and a manager. She returned and indicated that a refund would not be granted. When I asked to speak to a manager I was told no one would speak to me. No one will speak to me? What type of customer service is that? She then got sarcastic which led me to end the call and file a Revdex.com complaint. The amount that I requested be credited back to me was $70. I can not believe a company like this would loose a loyal customer over that amount. I guess customer satisfaction is not important or frankly they must have enough customers. I believe that RMI has mislead thousands of customers and RMI should be ashamed of such practices.Desired Settlement: I would like a $70 check refund and request that the vague term of "filing fee" be represented as "SR22 filing fee" so customers know what they are paying for. Scams and confusion is not ethical. This is only fair and would cut down on the confusion. After all why would RMI want to charge customers unnecessary fees?

Review: My car was hit while parked on february 22, 2015 and my insurance paid for most of the damages. When I got my car back from the mechanic it was making a noise it never did before, I retuned it to the mechanic and he could not find what the problem was and had to take it the dealership, My insurance company went to look at it and they say it was prior damage, My car was purchased new through a dealership May 2014, It has less than 20,000 miles on it and have never been in a accident, My insurance denied my claim for the additional damages.Desired Settlement: They pay for the additional charges.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted],Your concern, submitted through the Revdex.com, has been received and reviewed. Please note that our response to this concern is being submitted in conjunction with the request for assistance that you have submitted to the California Department of Insurance.Based on your request, it appears you feel a portion of your

claim has been improperly denied or rejected.

Specifically, our office has found that the damage to the left front

wheel hub and bearing are not related to the above referenced loss.This loss involves damage to your 2014 Nissan Versa, which

was parked along a curb, and struck by another vehicle. The point of impact was to the left rear of

your vehicle, pushing the right rear wheel against the curb. In total, our office has paid $7,628.94 in

order to repair the damages to your vehicle, consisting of loss related damage

to the left side quarter panel, left side door and center pillar, right rear

body and right rear suspension, and both left and right rear wheels.During the course of the claim, our office has inspected

your vehicle three times:

2/24/15 –

vehicle inspected while parked along the curb at the scene of the loss. Vehicle was hit at the left rear and

pushed up against the curb at the right rear. No front end damage is noted, including

the left front wheel.

3/19/15 –

vehicle inspected at 26 Auto Body, after teardown to expose all damage,

and after receipt of the repair shops estimate for requested additional

repairs. No damage noted or found

by the appraiser or the repair shop to the left front wheel or any front

end suspension items.

4/23/15 –

vehicle inspected at Nissan of Van Nuys to address a “whirling noise”

coming from the rear end of the vehicle.

As per the dealership diagnosis, the noise is coming from the left

front hub and bearing. The vehicle

was taken to the dealership with no wheel covers so the appraiser was

unable to inspect the left front wheel cover for new damage.

Based on the information in our file, the damage to the left

front wheel hub and bearing is not related to the damaged caused by the left

rear impact. The left front was not

impacted at the time of the loss. No

damage was visible to the left front wheel cover. No other damage was found to either the left

or right front suspension, even after a four wheel alignment was

performed. The wheel cover was not left

with the dealership at the time of our third inspection, and the vehicle had

travelled over 200 miles since the final repairs at 26 Auto Body. It is also evident that there have been

repairs performed to the left hinge post prior to this loss.

This being the case, it appears that the partial denial in

question is accurate and fair.

We hope that this letter provides you with the information

requested. Please feel free to contact

me if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Physical Damage Supervisor

[redacted], ext. [redacted]

Review: Sorry to have to do this, but I have been getting the run around by Robert Moreno insurance company for years. I have tried over and over to cancel my towing fee, ever since we found out that 1). they only credit up to $50. for a tow (but charge almost $70. to hook up the car...then they charge mileage on top of that), so we're well over $100. just to tow a few blocks to the shop. And 2). Just today, we had a breakdown. I thought I'd try the Towing service a second time (since I have been paying it for the past 7 years...only to be told by the towing company (Nationsafe), that they cannot find out why my towing service had been canceled...even though Robert Moreno called them directly for me, and said I was in fact covered for this service. At any rate, after more than 2 hours sitting in my car at 100 degrees, they declined to tow my car unless I pay out of pocket, and then they "will consider reimbursement". I was just told that I have to pay out of pocket for the service I'm paying for.Desired Settlement: Refund of 2 towing bills as agreed through my contract, and a legal cancellation of said fees that I had in the past, tried to cancel. Robert Moreno insurance rolls in the towing payment into my monthly bill and has refused to delete the service.

Review: I PURCHASED CAR INSURANCE AT THE HIGHWAY 74 LOCATION OVER A YEAR AGO. IN AUGUST 2015, MY CAR BUMPER FELL OFF. I REACHED TO THE INSURANCE TO REPLACE IT. THEY SENT OUT [redacted] TO LOOK AT THE DAMAGES. HE CONDUCTED AN ESTIMATE AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE OVER $900 IN DAMAGES TO BE REPLACED. I REACHED TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO SEE WHEN THIS WOULD BE TAKING PLACED, SO THEY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES ON MY INSURED VEHICLE.Desired Settlement: I WOULD LIKE MY BUMPER TO REPAIRED AS WELL AS Revdex.com TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE POOR QUALITY OF SERVICE THIS ORGANIZATION PROVIDES.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted],We apologize that you have had concerns regarding the status of your claim.Review of our file indicates that the damages to your vehicle were assessed by an appraiser. The amount of the estimate is $834.77, which is below the the amount of your$975 insurance deductible. A letter advising you of this was mailed to you on 9/14/15, along with a copy of the estimate. This letter also advises that if any additionaldamages are found, to please contact our office to arrange a secondary inspection. On 9/24/15 our office received this letter returned in the mail due to your mailing addressbeing invalid. You indicated you were receiving mail at a new P.O. Box address and this information was re-sent to you. On 1/12/16 our office received another updatedmailing address for you and again forwarded the information to you.At this time, the damages to your vehicle do not exceed your $975 deductible. If you are in need of another copy of the estimate, we will gladly forward it to you again.In the event that you take the vehicle to a repair shop of your choice and it is determined that there is additional damage that was not visible at the time of the initialinspection, please contact our office as soon as possible so that the additional damage may be evaluated.

Review: I first received a letter and a Claimant's Report of Accident (Auto) from Robert Moreno Insurance/[redacted] dated 1/3/14, requesting that I complete the claim form and return the document to their office. The claim form, dated 1/14/14, was completed and mailed back to their office as requested.I then received a 2nd letter and another Claimant's Report of Accident (Auto) from [redacted] dated 1/31/14. I called [redacted] on 2/7/14 @ 9:28am, and left a voicemail msg inquiring about why another Claimant's Report of Accident (Auto) was sent to me for completion, although I had sent one dated 1/14/14. I also stated in the msg that if [redacted] did not receive the initial form to please call me, so that I could send a copy of the original completed form.A third letter from [redacted] was received dated 3/4/14, stating "we need to know if there were any injuries in your vehicle"On 3/8/14 @ 6:27pm, I called and left a msg for [redacted] regarding the letter dated 3/4/14. In that voicemail msg, I explained that I had called and left her a voice mail msg on 2/7/14 @ 9:28am, RE the Claimant's Report of Accident form (dated1/14/14) that I mailed back to her office and that I had not heard any response from her as to whether she received the form or not. I also sent an email as follow up to this voice mail msg dated 3/8/14 @ 7:28pm, and included 3rd party liability contact info for Kaiser/Trover Solutions, in order for her to obtain the medical bills for my injuries. I just received another letter dated 3/27/14, stating the same thing as the 3/4/14 letter, but no phone or email response to my earlier inquiries.On 4/3/14, I sent an email addressing the Customer Service Dept at Robert Moreno Insurance Services with a CC to Mr. Robert Moreno, regarding my dissatisfaction with their "no response" customer service and the implied accusation in [redacted] letters that I have not responded or given them the necessary info they need to evaluate the claim, when in fact, I have.Desired Settlement: At this point, I want Robert Moreno Insurance Services to handle & settle the claim for reimbursement to Kaiser through Trover Solutions. I am highly dissatisfied with the company's poor customer service skills of their employees and feel that they make claims of non-receipt of info, in order to deny or delay payment for a claim. I work for a co. that treats customers with respect and this practice of Robert Moreno Insurance Services is not okay - the public should be informed.

Business

Response: