But two small claims within two years do not herald an onslaught of other claims. That would arguably be a "substantial" number of claims. Nor did I fire off five claims within two years or four claims per year.
They were claims I made with the expectation that Tower Hill would stand beside its policy holders. Nor were the claims for $50,000 or even $20,000. I will argue that the two claims were not "substantial" in that the claim(s) were not for $250,000.00 in damage. However, Florida law allows for a single claim of water damage. In the second case I filed a claim for water damage caused by improperly installed gutters. In any event, Tower Hill did not make a payout in that claim. In the first, I had to make a claim so that an attorney could take a third party to court for damages - and that company did in fact make a settlement with me. This reflects upon my earlier argument: I made two relatively minor claims. The key word as highlighted above is "substantial." As defined, "substantial" is an adjective that can mean "significant," "fairly large", or "large or relatively large in amount or extent or degree." Individually rated risks having a policy term of less than 90 days. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to Policy or when the cancellation is for all insureds under such policies for a Of effectuation of coverage, or a substantial change in the risk covered by the Underwriting requirements established by the insurer within 90 days of the date Material misstatement, a nonpayment of premium, a failure to comply with No such policy shall be canceled by the insurer except when there has been a On a more practical level, here's another reason for rejecting Tower Hill's response, as taken from Florida law:Īfter the policy has been in effect for 90 days, But when an insurance company accepts my annual payments but then has the temerity to tell me that they had to "spend money to process two claims," then that company does not qualify for a positive endorsement by the Better Business Bureau. I get it I've held enough dying children in my arms to understand this. But did you ever take the time to really care about your clients - in this case, me? Did you ever see whether there might be mitigating circumstances? Do you even care that you're tossing aside a first-responder pensioner with your blithe comment, "good luck in finding another insurance company?" You think I made too many claims per your computer-generated assessment and evaluation tools. Nor can Tower Hill provide a good answer to this question: "Fine. and it's a message that's been proven to be genuine. On the other hand, Nationwide Insurance enjoys that positive reputation of caring with their "Nationwide is on your side" message. But they can never undo the poor reputation that comes from not caring about their clients. Sure, I get it-Tower Hill can always find new customers in Florida's customer-rich environment they can always spend the money it takes to process new accounts they can divert resources to cement these new accounts. What Tower Hill has failed to grasp is that while they might be following the letter of the law, they've failed abysmally when it comes to the spirit of doing better business. Tower Hill Insurance Group's response is so nice and sanitary "We have the right " or, "The State permits us to. I think Tower Hill should reach out to me and my agent in good faith, discuss the matter, and renew the policy.
Besides, it's not as if I filed for a destroyed home, for goodness sake. In fact, they flat-out refuse to speak to me so that I might explain the reason for the first claim. But Tower Hill's policy is that the underwriters will only speak to my agent-and yet they refused to speak to my agent.īottom line? Tower Hill dropped me without any attempt to find a middle-ground. I replied that we might work out a win-win solution. They told me it would do no good to speak to a manager. Regardless, I called Tower Hill and asked to speak to a manager, citing mitigating factors in at least one of the claims. However, the NONRENEWAL notice was adamant: "Due to the claims activity, further company review of this decision is not warranted or anticipated." The second claim involved some water damage caused by a poorly installed gutter put in place years before we bought the home.
This is like filing a police report for a minor auto accident to satisfy legal requirements An attorney told us to file a claim with our insurance company, "even though it will be denied," before we could move forward with a lawsuit against the movers. In the first claim, movers damaged some of our property but wouldn't pay for the damage.
The reason stated: we made two small claims. I recently received a NONRENEWAL notice dated.
0 kommentar(er)
