BBB Accredited Business since

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

Additional Locations

Phone: (800) 873-4552 Fax: (610) 227-0027 View Additional Phone Numbers 1 Bala Plz Ste 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Philadelphia Insurance Companies meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Philadelphia Insurance Companies include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 12 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

12 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 1
Billing/Collection Issues 3
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 8
Total Closed Complaints 12

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

1 Customer Review on Philadelphia Insurance Companies
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 1
Total Customer Reviews 1

Additional Information

BBB file opened: October 09, 1996 Business started: 01/01/1962 in PA Business incorporated 09/06/1990 in PA
Type of Entity


Business Management
Mr. Robert O'Leary, President Mr. Seth W. Hall, Vice-President of Customer Service Mr. William Procopio, Corporate Communications Manager
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Mr. Seth W. Hall, Vice-President of Customer Service
Principal: Mr. Robert O'Leary, President
Business Category

Insurance Services

Alternate Business Names
Maguire Insurance Agency, Inc. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

Additional Locations

  • 1 Bala Plz Ste 100

    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (800) 873-4552

  • 1 Bala Plz Ste 100

    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004


BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

9/22/2015 Problems with Product/Service
5/12/2015 Problems with Product/Service
8/9/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Philadelphia Insurance Companies ignored a request in March to not renew my annual policy. They proceeded to hound me over the past few months with past due notices and threats to go to collections. When I finally filled out some paperwork that they had never previously told me was required for their internal processes, I assumed the matter was closed. Then yesterday I received a notice for a bill of a "reinstatement fee." This is a scam, or certainly unseemly practices, similar to the companies that send a "free sample" with a request for a credit card number and then start charging regularly without the consumer's agreement. I most certainly did not ask to reinstate my policy, and that Philadelphia is trying to regain me as a customer by implying that I "owe" them this amount is unethical if not illegal.

Desired Settlement: I have requested Philadelphia to end this process multiple times. I informed them as of the last contact that if I heard from them again I would be billing them for my time spent on this (currently 3 hours at $70/hr for my regular rate in my practice = $210), and that I would be notifying the BBB if anything further occurred, regardless of their response, because other consumers should be made aware of their shady practices. This "bill" was the last straw.

Business Response:

To Whom it May Concern,


Our representative spoke with ********* ***** on July 22nd and confirmed that the cancellation has been processed effective 3/7/2014 and that there is no balance due on the account.  We apologize that the policy was automatically renewed after *** ***** had advised that she did not wish to renew coverage and that the process of cancelling that policy required more effort than expected. 


Below is a timeline of activity for the account. 


********* ***** dba **** ******** *** ********                                                                                                                             
Account:  ********                                                                                                                                                    
Policies:  *********** * **************

3/4/2014 – Contact Center Rep received a call from the insured regarding cancelling the renewal policies. Insured was referred to her agent and request was uploaded into RapidSure and Path. This was not an LPP.

5/13/2014 – Cancellation notice for non-pay generates from **** (No LPR was received)

5/13/2014 – Contact center received call from insured regarding the cancellation.  She was referred to her agent again.

5/21/2014 – LPR’s were sent to the insured for cancellation based off the note from the contact center on 5/13/2014.

6/20/2014 – 1st Letter of collection issued. Agent is notified as well.

6/20/2014 – Collections Rep. Resent LPR’s to the insured advising of the previous request for cancellation and that collection action is starting.

6/23/2014 – LPR’s received from insured and submitted for processing.

7/8/2014 – Email received from insured by collections stating she received more LPR’s and wanted to know if they needed to be filled out.  She was advised of forms previously sent/received.

7/9/2014 – Flat Cancellation Processed

7/22/2014 – Insured notified that cancellation request has been processed and there is no balance due. Reinstatement fee was waived on RapidSure policy.



As the request has been completed and the account reflects a zero balance we are unable to provide any further resolution.




Carrie S***********, CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Assistant Vice President, Customer Service Operations

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

A Member of the Tokio Marine Group


One Bala Plaza, Ste 100

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

Internal Dial: 801.1467

Direct Dial: ###-###-####

Direct Fax: ###-###-####


Focus on the things that Matter, We’ll Handle the Risk!

To learn more about us, visit

Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because: the timeline provided by the business makes no mention of their "bill" dated 7/9/14 for a $50 "reinstatement fee". I informed thw business' representative that I expected to receive no further communication from Philadelphia insurance. The timeline also makes no mention of my email dated 3/3/14 alerting the business that I would not be renewing my policy. The amount of time I was engaged trying to cancel this policy was ludicrou, after it never should have been renewed to begin with. 


********* *****

Business Response:

*** *****,

Again, I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the automatic renewal of your policy and the subsequent need to contact us to resolve the situation.  I did acknowledge that the policy was renewed after you had advised that would did not wish to renew. 

As noted, at this point all possible steps to correct the error have been taken.  The policy cancellation is now effective at inception, the reinstatement fee has been waived and the account reflects a zero balance.  I apologize that the reinstatement fee invoice was released by our systems before the representative processed the transaction to remove the fee when you had clearly requested no further communication.  You have seen clearly demonstrated that our system programming cannot always be manually adjusted to prevent a document from being created - first, for your policy renewal and now, for the reinstatement fee invoice.   

I understand and agree that the frustration and inconvenience you experienced was unnecessary.  I'm sorry, but all I can offer is an apology as we are not in a position to provide payment or recompense in any other fashion. 


Carrie S***********, CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Assistant Vice President, Customer Service Operations

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

A Member of the Tokio Marine Group


One Bala Plaza, Ste 100

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

Internal Dial: 801.1467

Direct Dial: ###-###-####

Direct Fax: ###-###-####


Focus on the things that Matter, We’ll Handle the Risk!

To learn more about us, visit


8/9/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 6/6/14 an incident occurred in the car wash insured by this company. The initial response from the insured was to assume liability and file a claim to get the repairs taken care of. An appraiser was sent out who assessed the damages then sent an emailed estimate on 6/17/14 to provide to the repair shop who at that point ordered the parts. On 6/20/14 a letter of denial was generated to be mailed stating in summary that damages would not be covered as their client was not found to be liable. Since then I have not been able to get a return phone call from the claims rep (Jennifer N*****), her supervisor (Jeff M*****), nor her manager (Nancy E***) for resolution. Representatives in customer service keep directing me back to Jennifer with the promise of a callback. I'm trying to understand why and how a claim can be closed after a company goes so far as giving a repair estimate for approval. It appears as if the honor was lost when they discovered how much it would cost. Is this legal? I'm trying to avoid seeking legal counsel in this matter and hope for human resolution.

Desired Settlement: At the very least pay my deductible if I will have to file a claim with my own insurance but honor the commitment of accepted liability.

Business Response:

July 29, 2014

Dear *** ****** :
The Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company issued a Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy to **********, Inc., under Policy Number *********** with effective dates of the applicable policies from 04/02/2014 to 04/02/2015.
This letter is in response to the letter of July 10, 2014 from the Better Business Bureau to **** **** from Philadelphia Insurance Company.

Please be advised that we initially spoke with the above captioned claimant on Jun 13, 2014. We advised her that we have to complete our liability investigation and set up an assignment for an independent appraiser to inspect her vehicle.
After we completed our liability investigation, we sent a liability denial to the claimant as we found no negligence on the part of our insured in failing to maintain the carwash or any notice of any prior problems with it prior to this occurrence.
We spoke with the claimant again on July 21, 2014. She advised us that she was under the impression that we were going to take care of her damages and then we denied her claim. We advised her that the appraisal was for inspection only and pointed out where it said so on the estimate.

On July 22nd we agreed to compromise the disputed claim and pay the claimant's five hundred dollar comprehensive deductible and the claimant accepted. A check for $500.00 was issued to the claimant that day.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please contact the undersigned at ###-###-#### or the Supervisor, Jeffrey M******, at ###-###-####.


 Jeffrey M
Claims Supervisor

7/6/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: i was walking down the sidewalk to my condo the sidewalk has damage and when i was walking i was gonna walk on it and when i stepped over it and slipped on an ice patching causing me to fall and the laptop and and tablet went flying so if they ********* ***** aka as ****** ********** if they would have fixed this sidewalk i wouldn't have this problem and the insurance refuses to pay for it and they been giving me the run around because they are two insurance company they are also aka as ********** insurance which they failed to tell they are also giving me the run around

Desired Settlement: Want to them to pay for lose of a tablet and computer that when i slipped and fell on sisewalk and laptop went flying and cracked both screens

Business Response:

June 24, 2014

Dear **. *****

We are the General Liability Insurance Carrier for the location where the customer allegedly fell.

The customer allegedly slipped and fell due to snow or ice on the sidewalk of his residence in January 2014 resulting in damage to two pieces of electronic equipment.

Our investigation determined that a snow removal contractor was responsible for performing snow removal service upon the premises. We sent correspondence to the contractor, asking their insurance carrier to handle this claim.

The insurance carrier for the snow removal company denied liability for the incident arguing that adverse winter weather conditions caused the alleged accident and not a failure of maintenance. We happen to agree with that carrier’s decision, as the weather conditions were open and obvious on the date of Complainant’s alleged fall.

While we are sorry this alleged incident occurred, and that the Complainant allegedly sustained property damage to two computers, we are not liable for this loss. We have properly investigated this matter and placed the appropriate parties on notice.

Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information.

5/31/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was injured on their insureds property July 1, 2010 due to negligence of the staff who failed to supervise their clients at a juvenile drug court facility, three (3) years and ten (10) months ago and Philadelphia Claims Department has failed to settle the claim (**********) resulting in a bad faith. The statute of limitations runs out on July 1, 2014. The Business is **** ******** **** **** ********* ******* ***********, Florida *****. I have been informed that laws upheld by the insurance commission have been broken.

Desired Settlement: Needs to settle personal injury claim without low balling due to negligence by insured before a lawsuit gets filed asking for punitive.

Business Response:

May 19, 2014

Dear *** *****:
We are in receipt of complaint number ******** submitted by *** ******* ******. The complaint alleges Philadelphia Insurance Companies is acting in bad faith by failing to settle her claim. We vehemently disagree by the allegations raised by *** ******.
*** ****** was injured while she was driving her vehicle on our insureds’ property. *** ****** received a settlement offer via her second attorney in October 2011 for $6,500.
In December 2013, *** ****** contacted Philadelphia Insurance Companies and advised that she was pursuing her claim against our insured. We advised *** ****** that our records reflect she was represented by an attorney and we could not discuss the claim with her directly as she was represented by an attorney.
In January 2014, *** ****** sent us a copy of a letter from her first attorney indicating he was not pursuing a lien on this matter. We advised *** ****** we need confirmation from her second attorney (who received the settlement offer) that he was not pursuing representing her nor assertline a lien against this claim.
We received confirmation from her second attorney that there was no lien. This was received on April 4, 2014; upon receipt of this information; we reinstated our settlement offer to *** ******.

*** ****** claims Philadelphia Insurance Companies has “lowballed” this settlement; however *** ****** received medical benefits from her No-Fault carrier. Her out of pocket expenses are minimal.

The settlement offer of $6,500 takes into account her out of pocket expenses, her prior claims history which is significant for pre-existing injuries. We have not received any type of evidence or documentation which merits reconsideration of our settlement offer. Our settlement offer reflects our genuine opinion on the value of this claim.

In the event you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact the undersigned.


1/18/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: The company attempted to take payment from another company and bank account for a new account that was already paid in full. When contacted about the mistake they refused to admit fault. They refused to refund bank fees and were extremely rude during phone conversations. Very dangerous mistake they made setting up auto pay from a prior account that had been terminated for over a year and attempting to take funds. My bank proved they initiated the attempts which they stated they didn't initially then changed the story but tried to make up a reason for doing it.

Desired Settlement: I want the account terminated. I want assurance that they will not ever have access to my bank accounts and I want the bounce fee my bank charged me for their mistake refunded!

Business Response:

To Whom It May Concern:

****** ******, our Account Services Manager, reached out to **. ************ by phone.  She explained the situation and apologized for the billing inconvenience caused by having his current policy attached to the same account as his prior cancelled policy.  **. ************ was amenable to ******'s solution to issue a refund check for the $29.50 NSF fee incurred due to the error.  It is our belief that **. ************ agrees that the issue is resolved at this point.  Thank you.

****** ************, CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Assistant Vice President, Operations

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

A Member of the Tokio Marine Group

8501 Turnpike Drive, Suite 200

Westminster, CO 80031

Internal Dial: ********

Direct Dial: ###-###-####

Direct Fax: ###-###-####

Focus on the things that Matter, We’ll Handle the Risk!

To learn more about us, visit


12/17/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Philadelphia Insurance Company, along with their representatives (********, ***** ******, ****** ***** Insurance, ****** ******, ****** ******, *** ***********, **** ********, **** *******) continue to harm over 200 homeowners by failing to investigate clai**, denying clai** covered by the policy, underpaying clai**, forcing unnecessary legal fees, holding clai** in "open" status to blacklist and flag insured to potential new ca**iers to bid higher, refusing rights of the insured to appraisal, sending contractors onto property without authorization which coincided with malicious damage to roofs, releasing policy information which provided an unrelated third party with financial information of homeowners, sending and having unauthorized communications with vendors effectively blocking ability to obtain insurance in a regular market, etc. If each of us lived in a home, this would have been settled. However, this is big business and worth the attempts to slip something past anyone to underpay or to delay, bully & harass when the consumer doesn’t accept what PIC is willing to force feed it. Damages in premiu** at $40k and projected to go to no less than $225 due to delays and blacklisting. Legal fees $25k minimally to date, keep running up more to harm and force lower settlement. Ins agent notified all entities and had phone conversations to effectively block from normal market and force into a surplus line…thought she could force us into a $117k policy when she realized we had another agent working for us whom secured at $65k. Have e-mails whereby tried scare tactics to keep us from going with the lower policy. New policy still had ***** ****** (adjuster) attempting tactics by having company inserting a clause that stated that we must use ***** ****** whom was sending random vendors and one known to have defective workmanship.

Desired Settlement: Settlement of cu**ent claim to include (1)expenses for the expanded scope of work due to (A)the 2+ year delay (B) additional resulting damages to include, but not limited to, (a) labor (b)materials c)ordinance changes/upgrades (d)permits (e) inspections (f)taxes (2)bad faith (3) harm to include, but not limited to, (A)legal (B) increased premiu** for blacklisting through the use of the "open" on a loss/run (C) mediation (D) damages for utilizing the delay and non-renewal to force homeowners into a surplus market and a 300% increase (E) emotional suffering by (1)living conditions (2) fear of being bankrupted by their posturing (3) blocking the repairs without having to accept the expense vs being paid under the policy (4)bullying (5)harassing

Business Response: November 13, 2013

Dear **. *******:

The purpose of this writing is The Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Philadelphia) response to you regarding the captioned clai**. This complaint relates to two clai** seeking coverage for hail and water intrusion losses under the above mentioned property policies for roof damages.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company retained various experts to assist them in performing a thorough investigation and though a limited amount of hail damage had occurred, the roof was found to be repairable without total replacement as claimed.   None of the
hail damage observed could be correlated to the interior water damage but instead related to the improperly installed attic vents.  Though PIIC issued payments for the damages identified, the insured continued to dispute these findings providing little to no support.

At the suggestion of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, the parties agreed to voluntary mediation.   The parties have amicably settled the dispute and payments have been issued in exchange for a signed release.   The ter** of the settlement are confidential at the customer’s request.  
We believe that our activity in trying to assist our customer in this matter has been fully appropriated to-date.  

Any action taken by us, or persons retained by us, in conjunction with an investigation of this complaint and the amount of the purported loss shall not constitute or be construed to be an admission or assumption of coverage by us under this policy, nor shall any action taken by us in any way constitute a waiver or estoppel of any of our rights under this policy and specifically our right to disclaim coverage.

Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please direct same to the undersigned at the following number and extension – ###-###-####, ext. ****.


Consumer Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

** is referencing clai** from 2007 to 2010 clai**.  However, *** *****'s remarks are not only inaccurate and untrue, he has breached the ter** of a confidential agreement in record time.  Please forward his letter to **** ******* of *****, **** ******, CO.

Specifically, it is about..

1.  From the first claim submitted by Property Mgt company, being denied without having (1) seen issue (2) and being covered....had to quote their own policy

2.  Delaying review of clai** by weeks

3.  Failing to resolve in under 3 to 7 months minimally despite (1) timely bids presented (2) people displaced from their homes (3) work completed

4.  insured consistently having to be reimbursed for work months after completion

5. insured having to expend considerable time and expense in bringing to resolution

6.  insured's loss/runs/premiu** were artificially being held open by these delays

7.  Refusal to subrogate a claim by merely conferencing with **'s legal counsel, as the HUD had told ***** ***** to pay the claim.  Why would a company not want to recover $75k to $80k?

8.  Refuse to answer if ***** ***** was also their client and chose to harm ** over ***** *****?  ** had given irrfutable proof that ***** ***** had caused the issue damaging 5 out of 6 units to the Philadelphia adjuster.  Philadelphia claimed not to have received.  ** sent to Philadelphia too.  This once again artificially affected **'s loss/runs/premiu**.

9.  Philadelphia's clai** adjusted told ** that if they wanted their money they would have to complete for** unfamiliar to them that are normally completed by Philadelphia's clai** adjuster and which Philadelphia had detailed in an e-mail what the clai** adjuster was to pay.

** has the e-mails illustrating the delays despite approval by Philadelphia.  The loss runs illustrate clai** that were never reviewed.  An insurance quote listing that ** must accept a specific clai** adjuster by a new carrier.  A notation that does not exist in the actual policy and which it deemed a form of harrassment to keep it from accepting the policy and force it to a $55k increase in premium.  Without ** permission, broker contacted all carriers to force ** into a surplus market; then, realized that ** had already been negotiating with a carrier for far less.  The open loss runs, clai** held open months simply waiting for payment, clai** on runs not submitted by ** have greatly harmed **.

*** ***** needs to address the correct issues/clai** and inform the proper parties as to his breach.


Please provide an e-mail that I can forward a series of e-mails between Philadelphia and their clai** adjusters depicting the issues.


** ********

Business Response: November 19, 2013
Dear *** *******:

Please allow this to serve as Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s response to *** *** ********’ additional comments to the extent it is able. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this response. This response will address the complaints in the order they are asserted by *** ********.

This matter involves two disputed clai** seeking coverage under two property policies issued to an HOA. *** ******** is the HOA President.

Philadelphia has not breached any agreement by its prior response indicating the parties had amicably resolved the disputed clai**. Pursuant to the request of the insured HOA, the settlement agreement between the parties provides that the ter** of the settlement are confidential however, the fact of the settlement are not.

1.    Unfortunately, it is unclear exactly which claim *** ******** is referring to in paragraph 1. A review of the two clai** which are the subject of the recent settlement agreement demonstrates that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company representatives timely acknowledged the clai** and immediately began investigation of the claimed losses. No clai** have been denied without investigation; neither of the two clai** which are the subject of the settlement were denied.

2.    A review of the clai** files reveals that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company timely acknowledged and investigated clai** asserted by this insured. Though it is unclear exactly what *** ******** is referring to, it is possible that she is referring to investigation of the second of the two clai** which are the subject of the settlement. This second claim was tendered shortly before a scheduled mediation of the first, earlier tendered, claim. After the mediation, the parties agreed to try to resolve both clai** as part of the settlement. Settlement negotiations took place over a matter of weeks; because negotiations were ongoing, the parties agreed to minimize costs on both sides during the negotiations, and no experts were retained by either party to further inspect the claimed loss during the negotiations.

3.    The only claim filed by this insured that took a number of months to resolve is one of the clai** recently settled as part of the settlement agreement. It is unfortunate that *** ******** considers this to be a delay by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company as Philadelphia communicated with its insured every month for a year, requesting information and documents necessary to adjust the claim; during this time the insured never responded to these repeated requests and never provided the requested information. Without this information, Philadelphia was unable to proceed with the claim. Once the insured responded, the investigation immediately proceeded.

4.    To its knowledge, the insured has not performed the repairs which were the subject of the recently settled clai**, so Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company cannot explain this complaint.

5.    In the normal course, property clai**, particularly large, complex clai** such as that submitted by this insured, take time to investigate and then negotiate to conclusion. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company endeavors to investigate and resolve clai** as expeditiously, as possible. We regret that *** ******** was frustrated by the time and efforts necessary to fully adjust the claim.

6.    Because the clai** were only recently settled, and it has taken the parties some additional time to draft and execute the appropriate settlement documents, the clai** have remained open, per industry practice. As soon as the settlement is complete, the loss runs will reflect these clai** as closed.

7.    Unfortunately, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company cannot respond to paragraph 7 as the clai** tendered to it by the insured did not involve either HUD or ***** *****. Nor does Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company have any subrogation rights for these weather related clai**. The basis of this complaint is unknown and appears to be misdirected.

8.    The reader is referred to the response in paragraph 7.

9.    Pursuant to the ter** of the property policies issued to this insured, the insured must submit a verified Proof of Loss. This document must be prepared and submitted by the insured. Again, this is standard industry practice. We regret that *** ******** was unfamiliar with this aspect of a property policy claim.

The remaining complaints appear to relate to the insured’s recent efforts to obtain coverage through other carriers and reference complaints about actions taken by the broker. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is not responsible for the actions of the broker, has no knowledge of these actions, and cannot further respond to the complaints.

Meanwhile, if you have any questions or comments, please direct same to the undersigned at the following number and extension - ###-###-####, ext. ****.


Consumer Response: [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

 Complaint: *******

I am rejecting this response because:

Philadelphia is not addressing the claims that began in 2007 for which the complaint is made:

1.  ***** Unit * whereby coverage was denied despite coverage under the policy.  The insured had to go above the claims adjuster just to get the claim investigated.  In the meantime, the homeowner was forced to hold, as in the legal arena Philadelphia must be allowed to investigate otherwise they may deny the claim.

2.  The next series of units with freeze breaks were denied.  It took legal counsel to kick start this claim.  Again, the homeowners were forced to hold while Philadelphia held off investigation yet again.  It seems one would first investigate so that the homeowner can mitigate.  In all circumstances, payments/reimbursements were untimely and required follow-up to obtain payment.

3.  The next claim involving 5 out of 6 units in a building *****, once again took weeks for the adjuster to step out onto property despite people displaced from their homes.  Although the work took 2-3 weeks to get 3 of the five returned to living/privacy conditions, the last took approximately 6 weeks.  As with the previous claims, work is always completed long before follow-up from Philadelphia, payment, etc.  The delays caused owners to lose tenants/rents.

Despite correspondence from Philadelphia directing the adjuster to pay, payment was stalled for months and required continual follow-up. Their adjusters are rude and impose tactics whereby they have attempted to go around the owners to obtain signatures from unauthorized party(s) in attempts to settle for less.  However, since ** keeps all of it's vendors apprised of the conduct of Philadelphia and it's vendors, our vendors immediately informed the owners.  In this situation, the adjuster was so obnoxious to actually tell the insured "if you want the money, fill the form out yourself" even though Philadelphia had had authorized.  The adjuster sent a blank form for the homeowners to complete with no guidance.  Note that this form is actually a release form.

Furthermore, ** had provided the adjuster with proof of liability for the at-fault party (***** *****, as a dead women of 18 months could not be to blame).  The information was never forwarded to their legal counsel, *******.  ******* was requested to reach out to the homeowner's legal counsel for a conference call to the at-fault party but refused.  The FHA had already directed ***** ***** to pay the claims.  Tell me what business does not want payment on $70k+ and I will show you a business whose clients are both insured by them.  Philadelphia has refused to explain why it walked away from reimbursement to the detriment of our loss runs.

4.  At some point, other claims were never responded to and closed by Philadelphia and their adjusters.  The homeowners just got tired of calling and not getting any response.  No other choice but to repair the interior damage without any response from Philadelphia (I have the voicemail).

5.  **** ***** looked at their loss run at some point and noted claims it had never made.  Philadelphia asserts it cannot remove said claims even though it is solely the doing of them and/or their vendors.  The impact of which forces the homeowner into higher premiums.

Throughout our claims experience with Philadelphia, their adjusters always seem to have another claim taking precedent over the timely filing of our claim even when the events occurred after our event.  Philadelphia and their representatives delay investigation subsequently delaying  restoration, cause financial loss to owners, and considerable stress. Furthermore, as the homeowners have had to pay for all expenses and waited for months to receive reimbursement, it has impacted them financially and left us wondering if we would ever see the money.  Erroneous claims, refusal to remove these claims, untimely closing of claims, open status and more have caused considerable financial harm to homeowners.

** cannot and will not ever recommend this insurance company or it's vendors to any person or organization, given their conduct and history.

*** *****'s letter avoids the issues presented from 2007 through 2010 for claims from 2006 to 2009 and erroneous entries.  Furthermore, please note the contradictions in his original letter and this one.

** asserts *** *****’s actions speak loudly and illustrate how far Philadelphia and it's representatives are willing to go to SKIRT and JUSTIFY their poor conduct.

1.  The matter does not involve that which *** ***** addresses.  However, I believe his conscience is getting the better of him.

2.  Please tell me if *** ***** is required by law to respond to your non-profit, not governmental entity.

3.  *** ***** cannot speak on behalf of ** or it's owner.  No issue has ever been amicably resolved with Philadelphia or it's representatives.

4.  Please tell me the factual basis in which *** ***** determined that the insured requested confidentiality and not the insurance company.

5.  So, an agreement is supposed to be confidential, but not the fact.  Is it just me or is *** ***** really stepping outside of good faith.

6.  Please tell me how many weeks or months is one to wait for an investigation before it is considered untimely?  How many months, years, expert witnesseses, reports, adjusters and money must  one pour forth, before it is determined that it is no longer a timely claim settlement?

7.  Is denial ever equated to disputed overcharging of erroneous deductible amounts or underpayment of claims?  or, simply considered approved because an insurance company throws the insured a bone? Wouldn't this lead an insured to consider having to accept or their ability to fight a giant in the legal arena?

8.  Is it agreeing or CONCEDING when forced to weigh continuing property and monetary damages vs ongoing delays?

9.  As *** ***** has never been present in these discussions, just where is he obtaining his information, especially as to the opinion and statements of the insured?

10. Does *** ***** truly know what the mediaton was about?  Apparently not, given his comments and absence from the process.

11. Can one negotiate when one party walked away?  Can one negotiate when said party doesn't engage for a period of time afterward?  Is this negotiating or delaying?

12.  *** ***** seems to speak to what the insured did or did not agree to , the extent, whom was or was not retained? How? Again, where is the basis of these statements?

13.  Once again, refer to the actual claims referenced from 2006 to 2010 for delays, as well as the loss runs and the e-mails to the insured clearly illustrating the months that ticked off.

14.  Is the time to resolve start from the claim date or from some arbitrary date at the discretion of Philadelphia only?  Ask *** *****, if he is willing to reference actual timelines for claims.

15.  Ask *** ***** how one does repairs without money? And, tell him to reference the correct claims.

16.  Just how long does it take to estimate the cost to repair an interior of a condo of 900 to 1100 SF in comparison to house which is generally 1400 SF or more? Excuses, excuses, excuses.

17.  Do you negotiate with every homeowner in a house?  Not from my experience.  Why do they need to NEGOTIATE with us?  Insurance companies have a software which adjusters input the linear or square footage of product to repair and/or replace, quantities etc.  So, again, what is there to negotiate?   Philadelphia was presented with the scope and pricing for repairs.  Again, the work is only able to be done for "x" number of dollars.  Beyond, low bidder and high bidder what is there to negotiate, especially when the insured says Ok to the low bid?  Both agreed on scope.  So, again, what is there to negotiate.  Is *** ***** attempting to explain the difference in the way Philadelphia and their representatives treat their clients in homes vs condominiums. 

18.  In one breath *** ***** talks about trying to settle claims as expeditiously as possible, but in the next is making excuses why they can't for us.  So, which is it? timely or not? Not.

19.  Adjusting a claim.  Is that what Philadelphia calls it.  Why don't you ask where they started in relation to the scope of work Philadelphia set forth?

20.  If Philadelphia were to respond to the correct claim and the insured's phone calls to Philadelphia's in-house counsel (*******), with respect to the Dec 16 claim of $70k plus not paid until after May of the following year, he might be able to review the correct issue.

21.  The claims to which he speaks to the best of my knowledge have not been settled.  As it requires my signature, I am sure that I would know better than he.  So, once again, where is the basis in fact for any of his statements?  Did *** ***** not tell BBB in the first letter that the insured was paid?  So, just why is something still open?  There appears to be distortion of facts.  Please clarify.

22.  So, what about all those claims being open months after completion of the work and delays in payment.  Did Philadelphia artificially hold open claims keeping them on the loss runs longer than necessary which affects the insured's premiums.  Likewise, not recovering repair costs when offered, increase premiums for the insured as it stays on their loss run.  Again, who wouldn't enter into a brief negotiation over receiving payment on a $70 to $80k claim?  Is ***** ***** their client?  If so, why didn't the burden shift to ***** ***** whose interior pipes burst (not common area elements) and whom the funds should have been recouped from?  Condo or home, homeowners are still required to carry insurance and ***** ***** is well aware of this fact.

23.  The insured did supply a verified proof of loss from the contractor within days of the incident.  Two separate contractors, the insured agreed to the low bid as it agreed with the contractor on scope, expense and the quality of work based upon past performance.  The extent and scope of the damage was extremely visible to the eye and feel from the flooring through to the drywall falling off the walls into the insulation, cabinetry and fixtures.  So, just what is he talking about?  The insurance company requires the insured to sign-off on it’s "standarized form," it's representatives  have always completed it in the past, and Philadelphia told the adjuster it agreed to settlement sum.  So, why does Philadelphia's representative cop an attitude to complete their "release form?" Notice the term don't let someone talking out of both sides of their mouth confuse the issue of what the "proof of loss" form vs proof of loss actually speaks to.

24.  Ask *** ***** the impact of "open" claims and the length of time for open claims, regardless of amount.  The affect on the renewal process and if such a status can push an insured to surplus lines, extraordinary expense, uninsurability, etc.?  This is not a broker setting premiums or denying or approving coverage, it this the insurance company themself.  In the insurance industry, does *** ***** believe that a potential carrier might surmise that an open claim might infer an "issue;" by extension, does he concur that an "open" claim for years might actually infer to another carrier that there is potentially a much larger issue between the carrier and it's insured? expecially when their carrier of many years declined renewal?  After all, better to keep the client and recoup the loss, right?

25.  So, does simply refusing a resolution process in the policy constitute cause to extend the "open" status?

26.  So, if the process is outlined in the policy, why would an insured have to expend legal fees to obtain due process?

27.  Why would the interpretation of a set resolution process be based solely on that of the insurance company's forcing the insured to legal recourse for due process?

28.  Does anyone actually believe that a homeowner has this type of money to stand up to a giant?

29.  When does the statute of limitations run out? Is it possible for one to stall beyond the point of recovery?

30.  Can one avoid breach of confidentiality by speaking untruths while hiding behind it’s veil?

*** ***** continues to avoid speaking to the years of loss runs and claims in the specific time line we reference; however, he attempts to unburden his soul as he trips through wonderland.  Let me know when he's back in reality.

One has to admire the audacity and behavior of *** ***** while being lambasted for conduct, that he sees nothing wrong with his statements and specific references to "confidentiality" and what appears to be him attempting to circumvent "confidentiality."  How many times has he mislead the reader and sought to speak for the insured?  Clearly, *** ***** confuses negotiations with non-participation.  Fails to recognize the difference between stalling and attempts to impose conditions with agreement and amicable vs the actual affect of forced, concede, deplete and harm.

My condolences to all of the Colorado Flood victims, including those in Boulder to which Philadelphia's adjuster was sent to investigate "a limited number of claims."  Even though it meant blowing off set appointments for our claim, I doubt these people have received any more resolution than us to date, which is none.

As Philadelphia seeks absolution, tell them to go to their priest as they will not receive it from us.


** ********

Homeowner/Insured/Payor of Premiums

Business Response:

Please find attached response from **** ***** and additional documentation for your files regarding the concerns raised in this BBB Compalint. 

December 3, 2013

Dear **. *******: 

This letter is in response to the insured’s third complaint against Philadelphia Insurance Companies filed with the Better Business Bureau on or about November 22, 2013.  

Philadelphia is familiar with this insured. The parties were involved in a lengthy dispute regarding the scope and loss value of claims filed by the insured in 2011 and 2013.  Potential civil claims relating to those issues were recently resolved by means of a confidential agreement.  The resolution of these claims was a contentious and difficult process, culminating with the insured filing a complaint with the Colorado Division of Insurance (“DOI”).  Philadelphia is currently preparing a lengthy, detailed response to the complaint filed with the DOI and is cooperating with the DOI regarding its investigation relative to that complaint. 

At various points during the resolution of the 2011 and 2013 claims, the insured raised other issues with Philadelphia dating back to 2006. The insured’s most recent complaint to the Better Business Bureau is a continuation of the above dispute, which the DOI is handling.  A copy of the complaint filed with the DOI will be enclosed with the hard copy of this letter.  Philadelphia believes the DOI is best
situated to assess Philadelphia’s conduct in all matters relating to this insured.

The insured’s third complaint makes numerous allegations, all of which seem to relate to a claim for frozen pipes. Upon review of its
records, Philadelphia believes that the relevant claim was first reported to Philadelphia on October 16, 2007. Philadelphia assigned a local adjuster to investigate, and the adjuster determined that the majority of the damage occurred before October 1, 2006, which was the date at which insured first purchased a policy from Philadelphia. 

The remainder of the damage during the policy period was valued at less than the policy’s deductible, so no payment was made to the insured.  Philadelphia advised the insured of its conclusions, and heard no objections or questions about the 2006-2007 issues
for several years thereafter.  As noted above the insured raised issues about the 2006-2007 claim recently in connection with the dispute over more recent claims.  

Respectfully submitted,

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

9/17/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I called and spoke to a representative before my policy expired. I no longer needed Philadelphia Insurance as I am signing on with a new company. I was emailed a letter of cancellation and returned electronic document along with follow up telephone calls. I received a Thank You for renewing letter anyway and follow up requests for payment. I called multiple times to tell them the policy is cancelled. I just received a notice claiming I owe them $75. for back payment on the new policy that I never signed on for. They are now finally cancelling but threatening me with a collection agency. I'm going to pay the $75. as I don't want my perfect credit scored tarnished by these thieves. I would like a refund in the amount of $75. for services I did not sign for, need or want.

Desired Settlement: People should know this company threatens customers with credit scores to gain funds for unwanted service.

Business Response:

To Whom it May Concern,

When an insured requests that their policy be cancelled, it is our company’s standard practice to require a signed Loss Policy Release form to document the request.  Despite multiple interactions with **. *******, a Loss Policy Release form has never been received to request cancellation of this insurance policy.

According to our documentation, on 7/15/2013 **. ******* spoke with a representative on our Accounts Receivable team stating that he would like to possibly cancel his policy.  The representative advised that he would need to complete, sign and return the Loss Policy Release form and emailed him a copy of the form. 

On 7/24/2013 the representative sent a follow up email noting that Philadelphia Insurance Companies had not received the signed Loss Policy Release form.  On 7/29/2013 the representative again spoke with **. ******* who stated that he had mailed the form over a week prior and that he was unwilling to fax it directly to the representative. 

As of 9/4/2013, we still have no record of receiving the necessary Loss Policy Release form from **. *******.  The account has been moved to Collections for the $75.00 earned premium since the policy was in effect from 5/1/2013 until 7/31/2013 when it was cancelled due to non-payment of premium.  Philadelphia Insurance Companies also shows no record of payment for the $75.00 earned premium.

We have reviewed the situation and decided to make an exception to satisfy **. ******* despite our standard documentation requirement not being met.  Since we have referenced in our system, **. *******’s verbal intent to cancel the policy on the 5/1/2013 effective date, we processed a flat cancellation in our system. The flat cancellation removed the $75 earned premium due. If Philadelphia Insurance Companies receives the $75 payment the insured states he sent to us, we will promptly issue a refund to the insured.  


****** ************, CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Assistant Vice President, Operations

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

A Member of the Tokio Marine Group

6/9/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: The business insurer hit my vehicle and the business agree to pay. my car ran for two days and stop. they said wait untill adjuster come out before i do anything. three days later adjuster come out and tell's me wait for claim personel decision before taking action on repairing my vehicle. next day claim personel send me e-mail that a teardown is required. i put my car in shop the adjuster was suppose to come out to readjust the car (not sure if he came out of not). two days went by and the shop call and said the insurance company said that the starter not working was not damage during accident (my car was parallel park and that after noon when i seen my car it was park on a slant part way on the curb, headlights and body damage on driver side were starter is at). so i was to pay for repairs and was told that they will pay for the body damages. my car is in the shop now and they can't finish the job because they need to buy more parts. its been a week and still no payment from the business and the rent a car place is calling me for money. when i was told that the rental was mine until my car is fix.

Desired Settlement: i would like all expenses paid back to me for: rent car, starter, and possibly down payment for body parts. because i'm tried of waiting and can not move out of town with my car still here. accident happened april 9 and may 13; i have planned to move out of town by june

Business Response:

Please see attached response to the complaint noting that the claims adjuster has been in contact with *** ****** and has attempted to resolve this loss.

****** ************, CIC, CPCU, AU, AIM

Assistant Vice President, Operations

Philadelphia Insurance Companies

A Member of the Tokio Marine Group

8501 Turnpike Drive, Suite 200

Westminster, CO 80031

Direct Dial: ************

Direct Fax: ************


5/6/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I want to renew my fitness insurance policy which I have had with this company for several years. The policy cost is $126.06 for 1 year. They tell me I have to take the **** ******* in order to have policy which makes the policy $145.00. I do not want to ******* nor should I have to pay extra as I want only the policy which a I have been getting in past. This is a rip off.

Desired Settlement: I should have to pay for my policy only. $126.06 and not the added cost of a **** ******* that I do not want and if I did want can get from other sources for a lot less. It is not right.

Consumer Response: From: **** *** ****** **********************
Complaint #*******

Thank you for your follow up on this complaint. The company in
question has rectified the problem so there is no need for more
Again thank you for your prompt reply.

2/11/2013 Problems with Product/Service