Rockingham Mutual Group, Inc.

This is in response to the complaint submitted by [redacted], who filed a claim for fire damage to her dwelling electrical panel to Rockingham Group on Friday the 21st of August at approximately 9pm. On Monday August 24th, 2015, [redacted], an adjuster with Rockingham Group Insurance,...

contacted Ms.[redacted] to discuss her loss. The inside electrical panel was damaged due to fire and a majority of the electrical systems were not working properly. An electrician from [redacted] had been out to inspect the damages.  Mr. [redacted] obtained an estimate from Ms. [redacted] submitted by [redacted] that included the cost to replace the breaker panel for an amount of $4,975.18.  In addition, [redacted] provided an estimate in the amount of $8,350.18 to replace the central air conditioning system and heating system.  Mr. [redacted] explained to Ms. [redacted] that based on the size of her existing panel and the number of circuit breakers that needed to be replaced, the estimate from [redacted] appeared to be much greater than the usual and customary costs to perform that type of electrical repair. Mr. [redacted] offered to obtain the services of another electrician to obtain an estimate for the cost to replace the fire damaged panel.  He arranged for temporary housing for Ms. [redacted] until the panel could be replaced and power restored. He assigned the claim to an independent adjuster, [redacted], with [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] inspected the loss on Tuesday, August 25th and arranged to have a certified electrician verify the damages and estimate the cost to replace the panel.  The estimate to replace the panel by an electrician from [redacted], a local contractor, was approved by Mr. [redacted] in the amount of $2,285.58 on August 27th with instructions to proceed with repairs. Due to scheduling issues, Ms. [redacted] was not able to coordinate with [redacted] for the panel replacement until Friday the 4th of September. the panel was replaced on September 4th, but the electrical inspector was not available to inspect over the Holiday weekend.  Mr. [redacted] explained to Ms. [redacted] that she needed to coordinate with the electrical inspector to have the inspection performed.  The inspector showed up at her home unannounced on Wednesday the 9th of September and was not able to perform the inspection. On Monday, September 14th, Mr. [redacted] with [redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] that Ms. [redacted] was able to get the panel inspected on Saturday the 12th of September and [redacted] restored power to the home on Sunday the 13th of September. Mr. [redacted] made contact with Ms. [redacted] on Wednesday, September 15th to determine if there was any other damaged equipment at her home.  She advised that the air conditioning system and the overhead exhaust fan on her stove were not working properly.  In addition, she had spoiled food in her freezer and refrigerator.  Mr. [redacted] has arranged to have a technician check out her systems and issued a payment to Ms. [redacted] for the spoiled food. I spoke with Ms. [redacted] on Wednesday, September 15th and she indicated that all her issues have been addressed and she is satisfied with the final resolution. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, [redacted] Property Supervisor Rockingham Group Insurance ###-###-####

I have reviewed the response offer 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 vehicle never had a [redacted] report when I bought it in February 2014.  [redacted] is lying on every ground to try to not pay what he knows is the LAW in VA. In a 3rd party incident, the law states that I am supposed to be left in the same financial situation as I was before the negligent driving of their client. I was going to trade in the vehicle 4 weeks before the vehicle and had an offer for trade in. Now that the car has been in an accident and I am trading it in at the exact same dealership, I lost $6,000.00 in value that I had to pay out of my pocket. I wouldn't call that putting me back in the same financial situation. I am $6,000.00 in the hole because of negligence of his client. It is the law that he should pay. Mr. [redacted] tried to lie to me right on the phone and tell me that, [redacted] vs [redacted] stated there was no diminished value in VA because of this ruling. Well after further review of the case, the one he tried to lie and hide behind, states that I am to be left in the same financial situation after the negligence of his client. I just want the  crooked insurance company to abide by the laws. What is this? [redacted] all over again? Big company gets to lie and cheat to get out of abiding by the law and having a little business ethics and couth?
Regards,
[redacted]

We are in receipt of your correspondence referencing a complaint you received from Mr. [redacted] on October 21st.  We have denied the claim as stated in the complaint but the factual basis is very different than suggested.  The below information outlines our position in this case....

 Each claim is different so the decision in this case is based solely on the set of facts covering this loss.
Mr. [redacted]'s 2010 Infiniti QX56 was damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured.  As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle.  The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr. [redacted]'s choice.  As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired.  It is also important to note the age of the vehicle, model year 2010, and the mileage of 49,686.  This was not a new vehicle.  Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr. [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review.  The denial of diminished value for this loss is based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, 2011, with its previous owner.  Since the vehicle had a prior accident history the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident with the facts of this loss is not valid.
Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that it's denial of diminished value for this loss was appropriate.  The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts.  The vehicle also had a prior accident history so Mr. [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Manager

We are in receipt of your inquiry from October 27th referencing the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted].  The complaint is a result of Rockingham's determination that Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle did not incur diminished value as a result of the September 25th loss with our insured.
Mr. [redacted]'s 2010 Infiniti QX56 was damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured.   As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle.  The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr. [redacted]'s choice.  As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired.  It is also important to note that vehicle is model year 2010 with total mileage of 49,686.  This is not a new vehicle.  Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr. [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review.  The denial of diminished value for this loss was based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, 2011.  Since the vehicle had a prior accident history, the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident is not valid.
Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that its denial of diminished value was appropriate.  The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts.  The vehicle also had a prior accident history, so Mr. [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident.  We have confirmed that the [redacted] reporting service does not indicate that there was a prior loss to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle.  Although [redacted] does capture a lot of pre-existing vehicle history it is not a comprehensive data base.  Not all losses are reported to their service.  There was a prior loss as indicated by the ISO database report that we have included.   The fact that [redacted] did not capture the loss does not change our evaluation.  Given the quality of repairs and that there was a prior accident, we do not believe the car was stigmatized or incurred additional depreciation by the second accident with our insured.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

I have reviewed the response offer 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.
Mr. [redacted] admitted on the phone that vehicles have a life span. I said yes, 10 years or 100,000 miles. My vehicle is half that. So my vehicle still had 5 years and 50,000 left of its "life span". I lost $6,000 and have proven it by the applicable LAW of VA. In the [redacted] vs [redacted] case from 1977, for this reason, I want my $6,000 diminished value. Also rockingham group never paid for the loss of time with my vehicle, the sign that was damaged or the grass that was damaged. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: My vehicle was parked in a parking lot 12 ft off of the road. Rockingham Groups client ran off the road jumped a curb and smashed into my car. My vehicle is a 2010 Infiniti Qx56 Fully loaded with 46,000 miles on it, worth $34,825.00 by the NADA book value. Now my vehicle had about $6,000.00 worth of damage known of right now, also it now has a [redacted] accident report. By VA state law I am entitled to diminished value as proven in the case of [redacted] v. [redacted]). [redacted] of Rockingham Group says that my car is too old and has to many miles to receive diminished value. I had a professional inventory specialist from the largest Car Dealership in VA the same company that fixed the vehicle wrote a letter for [redacted] stating the diminished value IS $6,000.00, Yet [redacted] says my car is to old and has to many miles to have a diminished value. Even on NADA it gives the book value, than it says, "Is this 2010 Infiniti QX56 a car you can trust? Check the AutoCheck vehicle history report" when you click there, it asks for the vin number, as soon as you put in my vin it shows the car history, that the vehicle has an accident history and is now questionable. So my vehicle now has less value. On top of that, as I drive my "repaired" vehicle over time, we all know that more problems are going to arise because of this accident.Desired Settlement: I want the amount that the competent means that the law states. I had the inventory specialist at a large dealership look at it, Its diminished value is stated in the letter that Ken already has on his desk. I would also like a phone call from Ken to apologize to me for him lying and telling me that there is no such thing as diminished value.

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of your correspondence referencing a complaint you received from Mr. [redacted] on October 21st. We have denied the claim as stated in the complaint but the factual basis is very different than suggested. The below information outlines our position in this case. Each claim is different so the decision in this case is based solely on the set of facts covering this loss.

Mr. [redacted]'s 2010 Infiniti QX56 was damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured. As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle. The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr. [redacted]'s choice. As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired. It is also important to note the age of the vehicle, model year 2010, and the mileage of 49,686. This was not a new vehicle. Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr. [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review. The denial of diminished value for this loss is based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, 2011, with its previous owner. Since the vehicle had a prior accident history the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident with the facts of this loss is not valid.

Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that it's denial of diminished value for this loss was appropriate. The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts. The vehicle also had a prior accident history so Mr. [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Claims Manager

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer 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 vehicle never had a [redacted] report when I bought it in February 2014. [redacted] is lying on every ground to try to not pay what he knows is the LAW in VA. In a 3rd party incident, the law states that I am supposed to be left in the same financial situation as I was before the negligent driving of their client. I was going to trade in the vehicle 4 weeks before the vehicle and had an offer for trade in. Now that the car has been in an accident and I am trading it in at the exact same dealership, I lost $6,000.00 in value that I had to pay out of my pocket. I wouldn't call that putting me back in the same financial situation. I am $6,000.00 in the hole because of negligence of his client. It is the law that he should pay. Mr. [redacted] tried to lie to me right on the phone and tell me that, [redacted] vs [redacted] stated there was no diminished value in VA because of this ruling. Well after further review of the case, the one he tried to lie and hide behind, states that I am to be left in the same financial situation after the negligence of his client. I just want the crooked insurance company to abide by the laws. What is this? [redacted] all over again? Big company gets to lie and cheat to get out of abiding by the law and having a little business ethics and couth?

Regards,

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of your inquiry from October 27th referencing the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]. The complaint is a result of Rockingham's determination that Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle did not incur diminished value as a result of the September 25th loss with our insured.

Mr. [redacted]'s 2010 Infiniti QX56 was damaged in an accident with Rockingham's insured. As the vehicle was parked, Rockingham agreed to pay for the repairs to the vehicle. The vehicle was expertly repaired at the shop of Mr. [redacted]'s choice. As part of our decision it is important to note that all damaged parts were replaced with new parts versus being straightened and repaired. It is also important to note that vehicle is model year 2010 with total mileage of 49,686. This is not a new vehicle. Claims for diminished value are allowed in Virginia and Mr. [redacted] was directed by Rockingham to the applicable case law for his review. The denial of diminished value for this loss was based on the type of repairs, the age of the vehicle along with the mileage, and the fact that the vehicle had been in a prior collision on December 22, 2011. Since the vehicle had a prior accident history, the claim that the title was stigmatized by a subsequent accident is not valid.

Based on the facts of this loss, Rockingham believes that its denial of diminished value was appropriate. The car was returned to its pre-accident condition by expert repairs that included replacing all damaged areas with new parts. The vehicle also had a prior accident history, so Mr. [redacted] cannot claim the vehicle had a "clear" history prior to this accident. We have confirmed that the [redacted] reporting service does not indicate that there was a prior loss to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. Although [redacted] does capture a lot of pre-existing vehicle history it is not a comprehensive data base. Not all losses are reported to their service. There was a prior loss as indicated by the ISO database report that we have included. The fact that [redacted] did not capture the loss does not change our evaluation. Given the quality of repairs and that there was a prior accident, we do not believe the car was stigmatized or incurred additional depreciation by the second accident with our insured.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer 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.

Mr. [redacted] admitted on the phone that vehicles have a life span. I said yes, 10 years or 100,000 miles. My vehicle is half that. So my vehicle still had 5 years and 50,000 left of its "life span". I lost $6,000 and have proven it by the applicable LAW of VA. In the [redacted] vs [redacted] case from 1977, for this reason, I want my $6,000 diminished value. Also rockingham group never paid for the loss of time with my vehicle, the sign that was damaged or the grass that was damaged.

Regards,

Review: Three weeks ago, I had a fire in my electrical box in my home, so I called my insurance, rockingham. They asked me to find an electrician. I did so, the electrican, [redacted] came and did a very thorough job, and sent the quote to Rockingham, and said he can get the work done the next day. Rockingham, [redacted],the adjuster said the quote was too high, and they hired their own electrician, so they had the electrician call me to start the job about a week later, and of course I work a full time job alone at work at a very busy dry cleaners and I could not get to my home the time specified by the electrician so we agreed to get together for the job just 2 days later. The electrician stated he could not get an inspection done over the Labor Day weekend,since everyone left their offices for the weekend then accidentally,[redacted], left the window open on the job site, as they ran an extention cord thru the window. , it rained, and my home computer has water in it and needs replaced, as well as my rug downstairs in the basement I was at a hotel during this time of 3 weeks having to keep asking every single day for an extention ,until they get the work done. [redacted], with Rockingham ended the stay at the hotel and told me to get out since I was not available to meet the electrician at the time specified.The electrician [redacted] , [redacted],and [redacted] , told the inspector to go to my home and do the inspection, NO ONE CONTACTED ME, THE HOMEOWNER to go home and let them in. No phone call at all by anyone at all to let the inspecter in. The inspecters name is [redacted], with MID ATLANTIC or MIDDLE DEPARTMENT who did not have the courtesy of calling me at all about any inspection, it is now three weeks later, still NO POWER, with 2 children, and 2 animals , on the street without power in the home. [redacted] has been waiting for a fax. The insurance company has not mentioned that my furnace, air conditioner , refridgerator has to also be replaced. They are avoiding this subject.Desired Settlement: I need the inspection done right now, [redacted] contacted, and a witness to verify that all things are in working condition, and if not, replace furnace, air conditioner, refrigerator, and the food that was in the fridge, and a water logged rug and computer. I will then drop them completely. I had a problem with my last claim of a hail storm also,, and they would not give me the balance of 1900.00 owed to me.They are very unprofessional, and taking full advantage of a woman.

Business

Response:

This is in response to the complaint submitted by [redacted], who filed a claim for fire damage to her dwelling electrical panel to Rockingham Group on Friday the 21st of August at approximately 9pm. On Monday August 24th, 2015, [redacted], an adjuster with Rockingham Group Insurance, contacted Ms.[redacted] to discuss her loss. The inside electrical panel was damaged due to fire and a majority of the electrical systems were not working properly. An electrician from [redacted] had been out to inspect the damages. Mr. [redacted] obtained an estimate from Ms. [redacted] submitted by [redacted] that included the cost to replace the breaker panel for an amount of $4,975.18. In addition, [redacted] provided an estimate in the amount of $8,350.18 to replace the central air conditioning system and heating system. Mr. [redacted] explained to Ms. [redacted] that based on the size of her existing panel and the number of circuit breakers that needed to be replaced, the estimate from [redacted] appeared to be much greater than the usual and customary costs to perform that type of electrical repair. Mr. [redacted] offered to obtain the services of another electrician to obtain an estimate for the cost to replace the fire damaged panel. He arranged for temporary housing for Ms. [redacted] until the panel could be replaced and power restored. He assigned the claim to an independent adjuster, [redacted], with [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] inspected the loss on Tuesday, August 25th and arranged to have a certified electrician verify the damages and estimate the cost to replace the panel. The estimate to replace the panel by an electrician from [redacted], a local contractor, was approved by Mr. [redacted] in the amount of $2,285.58 on August 27th with instructions to proceed with repairs. Due to scheduling issues, Ms. [redacted] was not able to coordinate with [redacted] for the panel replacement until Friday the 4th of September. the panel was replaced on September 4th, but the electrical inspector was not available to inspect over the Holiday weekend. Mr. [redacted] explained to Ms. [redacted] that she needed to coordinate with the electrical inspector to have the inspection performed. The inspector showed up at her home unannounced on Wednesday the 9th of September and was not able to perform the inspection. On Monday, September 14th, Mr. [redacted] with [redacted] informed Mr. [redacted] that Ms. [redacted] was able to get the panel inspected on Saturday the 12th of September and [redacted] restored power to the home on Sunday the 13th of September. Mr. [redacted] made contact with Ms. [redacted] on Wednesday, September 15th to determine if there was any other damaged equipment at her home. She advised that the air conditioning system and the overhead exhaust fan on her stove were not working properly. In addition, she had spoiled food in her freezer and refrigerator. Mr. [redacted] has arranged to have a technician check out her systems and issued a payment to Ms. [redacted] for the spoiled food. I spoke with Ms. [redacted] on Wednesday, September 15th and she indicated that all her issues have been addressed and she is satisfied with the final resolution. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, [redacted] Property Supervisor Rockingham Group Insurance ###-###-####

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. This complaint has been resolved.

Regards,