Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company

Additional Locations

Phone: (920) 458-9131 Fax: (920) 458-7843 View Additional Phone Numbers 2800 S Taylor Dr, Sheboygan, WI 53081

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


This company offers property and casualty insurance.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company 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.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

15 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 5 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 4
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 11
Total Closed Complaints 15

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

13 Customer Reviews on Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 1
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 12
Total Customer Reviews 13

Additional Information

BBB file opened: December 01, 1958 Business started: 01/01/1925 in WI Business started locally: 01/01/1925
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster Street, Madison WI 53703
Phone Number: 6082663585 8002368517
Fax Number: (608) 266-9935

Type of Entity


Business Management
Jamie Loiacono, Vice President/Claims Mr. Shane Paltzer, Vice President Mr. Benjamin M. Salzmann, President & CEO
Business Category

Insurance Companies Insurance - Accident & Health Insurance - Auto Insurance - Homeowners Insurance - Property Insurance - Workers Compensation Insurance Services Insurance Services - Commercial Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers (NAICS: 524126)

Alternate Business Names
Industry Tips
Discount Medical Plans Wisconsin Auto Insurance Requirements

Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Summary

Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company has received 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 Customer Reviews and a BBB Rating of A+.

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

Additional Locations

  • 2514 S 102nd St Ste 110

    West Allis, WI 53227

  • 2800 S Taylor Dr

    Sheboygan, WI 53081 (920) 458-9131 (800) 242-7611

  • PO Box 58

    Sheboygan, WI 53082


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)

6/28/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
6/11/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have been with acuity since 2005. In 2015 my employee was rear ended in his work vehicle by an uninsured motorist. He did not miss work but needed brief chiropractic care. They paid the claim but treated my business very unkind with suggestions that my employee was dishonest to which I complained about on the survey they provided to me. In early 2016 they decided to do an in person audit of my company and told me that they did not know how to correctly code my business. They recommended that the state come and audit my business. Dealing with the state was actually easier than dealing with them. They were VERY uneducated in the state codes in which I had to do the research to get my business coded correctly. I am VERY dissatisfied with their service and professionalism in this matter and decided to switch insurance companies to which they have decided to fine me 10% of my yearly premium. I have never signed any contract with them agreeing to this. I feel that this is ridiculous as they have had my business since 2005 and all of a sudden have decided that I was not coded right. I have run my own business for many years and the customer always has the right to go to another business when they feel they are being serviced better and are not penalized for doing so. I do not want this amount that they are charging me to be turned into a collection agency as I do not owe them any money on my policy coverage. It was paid up until the cancellation date. The fine that they are trying to assess me is $939.96 for cancelling my policy. Thank you for your time and consideration in advance.

Desired Settlement: To have this cancellation fine dismissed of which I have not signed any paper work agreeing to such terms. Additionally not have this turned over to any collection agency. If need be I will have this reviewed by my legal counsel and if such collection action is taken I will seek reimbursement for legal fees from Acuity.

Business Response:

We appreciate your feedback.


We have reviewed the matter and determined that the policy was cancelled correctly in accordance with the policy provisions.


However, due to special circumstances related to this case, we have decided to work with the customer and not pursue the additional amount due.


We have reached out directly to the customer to explain our position and trust that the issue has been resolved.

6/5/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: My name is ***** and I am the power of Attorney for my parents ****** and ****** since this house was bought and they have been living here for almost five years. I signed the mortgage papers for them with my POA powers and have no restrictions. I have filed a claim for my parents as I am the POA and have documents from both of them turned into the company, With four contractors saying I need two thousand more dollars to make it ''as is'' they refuse to compensate me for the extra amount. Furthermore - the supervisor of the adjuster REFUSES to acknowledge the legal documents recognized by the state of Wisconsin. ( I have no restrictions on the POA) They do not give you what is owed to repair to ''as is'' and do not follow legal documents. I guess they make their own laws. They cannot refuse legal documents just because they don't know the law. Instead they want them to sign a paper with their signature with just a witness. My parents are tired of having to sign just one more paper.

Desired Settlement: My resolution along with my parents' wishes is to get the money needed to fix the issue and accept the POA as the legal form it is from the state of Wisconsin and stop ignoring the law.

Business Response:

ACUITY received notice of a claim on May 12, 2016 for an alleged date of loss of April 25, 2016. We inspected the property in question on 5/12/16.  On 5/15/16, we discussed our inspection findings and scope of damages with ***** regarding the roof damage and interior water damage and hand delivered the estimate to ***** on 5/17/16.  We then attempted to make contact with our actual policyholders to discuss the claim.  We first heard from our actual insured on 5/23/16 at which time we indicated we would need a signed policyholder's release before we could issue payment. We first received the Power of Attorney ***** refers to on 5/24/16 at 8:48am even though ***** was informed we would need this on 5/12/16 when the claim was originally filed.   ACUITY then submitted the POA to our attorney to review and we had our typical policyholder's release revised to suit this unique situation and sent the revised release to ***** for his signature today 5/25/16 at 10:29am and will issue payment upon receipt of the signed release being returned.   

As for the discrepancy with regards to the loss payment, our adjuster completed a thorough inspection of this property.  The inspection revealed minor wind damage to the roof and some interior water damage. There were a couple of holes in the valley that we gave the insured the benefit of the doubt on.  Despite the fact that the water damage and the roof damage did not occur the same day we did not require a second loss being set up and did not apply a second deductible even though our policy is a per occurrence policy.. The roof warranted a minor repair and did not warrant replacement. Our estimate was fair and reasonable.   

It should be noted that ***** ******* filed his complaint with the BBB the same day he provided the Power of Attorney.

4/1/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently had a claim into Acuity via a gas station car wash in Liberty MO. The claim number is PE5204 and the agent is **** at ###-###-####. On February 13th 2016, I was taking my truck through a car wash insured by Acuity. There was a malfunction in the car was which caused the door to slam down on the top of my truck as I was entering in - following the green light prompt to do so. The door caused $2800 damaged to my truck (structural). The gas station advised me to get multiple car repair claims and car rental estimates and took full responsibility for it. They ensured me their insurance would take care of the damage. Weeks after this happened, **** contacted me to get info on what happened. I gave my side of the story and she had pictures of the damage and the estimates in hand. After following up with her days after she said she would call, she advised me Acuity was not going to cover the damages. Her reason was that the car was followed a "service/maintenance" schedule and were not liable... An auto door on a car wash or garage door should have a safety sensor to stop the door from closing at all if there is an obstruction and it certainly should not have closed as hard as it did to damage the top frame. The gas station manager *** ###-###-#### wants the insurance to cover the damage. I feel **** was rude and short with me on the phone making it clear she could care less about the incident and only trying to save Acuity the claim.

Desired Settlement: To cover the cost to repair my truck and pay for the rental car while it is in the shop.

Business Response: Please be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, received the complaint filed by Mr. ******* on March 11, 2016.
ACUITY insures SM Trading Corporation and has coverage for their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. ****** is claiming his vehicle was damaged by our insured’s car wash. During the course of our investigation we spoke to ****** *******, *** ***** (SM Trading Corporation) and ****** **** (Overhead Door Company.). Our investigation revealed the door was bent inward and appears as though the door was hit while it was in the process of going up. Mr. **** stated once the door was repaired it ran properly and the photo eyes functioned correctly. With this information, we did not feel our insured’s actions negligently caused damage to Mr. *******’s vehicle.
However, at the request of our insured (SM Trading Corporation), we have taken care of Mr. *******’s damages. Enclosed is a copy of the property damage release signed by Mr. ******* and proof of payment.
Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
***** ********

2/7/2016 Problems with Product/Service
10/17/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: My husband and I hired a local contractor to landscape our new construction home in March of 2015. The contractor is insured by Acuity. The Insured and his company employees drove heavy machinery over our concrete driveway for several weeks which resulted in substantial driveway damages estimated at $16,200 to replace. This lead to ACUITY Insurance Claim # ******. The Insured testified to Acuity that our driveway was not cracked before he started the landscaping work. The Insured’s company was retained to clear the snow off our driveway all winter with his Ford F250 Truck/plow which he did without causing concrete damage. Next the Insured argued that because his truck and plow didn’t do damage, that his John Deere 323E track loader couldn’t have caused the cracks during the landscaping project, claiming both the Ford truck and the Deere track loader are the same weight. When my husband researched the weight difference of the two machines in spec documents, he found a fully loaded JD323E is 4500-6000 lbs. heavier than a Ford F250 truck. The skid loader was also driving over the edges of our concrete, which is where the cracks and broken parts are located. The Insured also admitted in writing in a text to us that his machines did the damage. This was also submitted to Acuity. However, the Insured told Acuity he felt our concrete was defective and should not crack under the pressure of his 12,500 pound machine driving over it for weeks. We submitted many detailed photographs outlining the path of the Insured’s machines paralleling our damaged areas to Acuity in support of our claim. Acuity plays games, and they’ve changed their strategy regularly as each new offer is presented to us. First, Acuity offered $600 stating there wasn’t enough proof that their Insured caused the damage, although he admitted to it in writing. After we declined, a new offer was made of $1500, still a fraction of the damages caused. This time, Acuity claimed our new driveway was comprised of defective concrete. Then, my husband and I requested that Acuity conduct an engineering report of our concrete PSI strength from an independent testing lab to prove our concrete is “faulty”. That’s when Acuity dropped that strategy and moved to their most recent “final offer” of $3000 claiming the Insured did indeed cause only one of the 7 damaged driveway sections with his machines. I requested the adjuster’s notes and a clearly outlined written statement as to why Acuity believes their Insured damaged just 1 section. I have heard nothing from them in a month. Acuity’s claim agents, ****** ***** and **** **********, are rude and condescending in their telephone communications. On 8/10/15 **** **********, an Acuity agent, flippantly directed me to get a lawyer and sue Acuity if I expected more than their $3000 settlement offer. Acuity was warned in writing months ago that their lowball offers are unacceptable and that we’d contact the BBB and the **** ***** ********* ************ for assistance if there was no resolution of the disputed claim. An official complaint has been filed with the **** ********* ************ and the Acuity agents were cc’d directly on the email. The Acuity agents both received a direct reply from **** *******, **** ********* ************, so they won’t be able to claim they are not aware of the complaint. I am aware that it’s unlawful for an insurer like Acuity to underpay claims. Insurers can’t compel a claimant to hire an attorney in order to be paid what they are owed. Iowa is a punitive damage state, meaning, if Acuity forces us to meet them in court they could face paying additional damages and all the attorney fees. Acuity can settle this claim by working with us and providing reasonable payment for damages caused by their Insured, or, they may present a detailed report with clear evidence as to why their lowball offers are acceptable. Again, we have written admission by their insured that his machines caused the damages. ~**** *. ******

Desired Settlement: Pay ACUITY Insurance Claim # ******

Business Response:

Please be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, received the complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. ****** on September 3, 2015.
ACUITY insures ****’s Four Season Yard Care and has coverage for their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. and Mrs. ****** hired our insured to do landscaping and put in a retaining wall. Mr. and Mrs. ******’ home was a newer construction. During the course of our insured’s work damage was found to the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. ****** state our insured is the sole cause of this damage as in order to complete his work he had to drive his vehicles and equipment across the driveway.
Our insured did drive on the ******’s driveway. However, after taking statements from Mr. ****** and our insured, we had the driveway inspected and it was determined our insured’s actions were not the cause of the damage to the driveway.
Our investigation showed there were several issues with the concrete
? When the driveway was installed it was not tamped properly. This is evident by the air holes at the surface which the contractor covered up with a trowel. Improper tampering could affect the strength of the concrete.
? Industry standards for a driveway thickness are no less than 4 inches thick. The ******’s driveway is only 3.5 inches thick
? The cracks to the driveway are typical with settling
? The concrete in the ******’s back patio is also settling and cracking in a similar fashion as the driveway

The inspection showed one isolated area of the driveway which was cracked at the corner. There is a possibility this type of damage could have been caused by our insured. In an attempt to resolve the claim with the ******’s we extended a compromise offer of $600 on June 30, 2015 to replace one of the 10x10 sections of concrete. The ******’s did not agree with our scope of damages and ACUITY increased out offer to $3,000 on July 16, 2015. ACUITY is still willing to resolve the ******’s claim for $3,000 in exchange for a release of liability.
Mr. and Mrs. ****** suggest that ACUITY has switched adjusters as a stall tactic. The claim was originally assigned to Monica Trott. Mrs. Trott remained the primary adjuster on the file until it was assigned to me on August 5, 2015. The claim transfer was solely due to a staffing matter and was in no way a stall tactic.
We spoke to Mrs. ****** on August 10, 2015 and discussed our $3,000 offer. Mrs. ****** stated she did not agree with our offer and asked what the next step was to get the claim settled. She was informed that would be her decision. She stated she did not know how to proceed and that is why she was asking. She was informed that she could handle it several different ways and I could not give her that advice. It would be her decision if she wanted to accept our offer, turn it into her insurance to subrogate us, or pursue other actions to remedy the driveway issues.
The ******’s also stated that our insured admitted his machine caused the damage. It should be noted the only documentation provided by the ******’s which show our insured admitted to causing the damage was a text message which states “know my loader did do a little damage but that’s from a poor contractor and that’s out of my control. I will call insurance company tomorrow and they will deal with it.” This text cannot be seen as an admission of guilt as our insured is clearly addressing the poor work which was performed by the contractor who did the driveway. Our insured disputes their negligent actions caused the damage that the ******’s are claiming.
Enclosed are photos of the driveway and patio. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Kyle **********
Senior Claims Representative
************ ******

Consumer Response: This is our final BBB rebuttal regarding ***** ****** as no resolve is coming from our communication
thread. All parties involved can agree to disagree. I have no further questions for ACUITY.
We dispute ACUITY’s insured used our driveway for its intended use. A driveway is designed to drive up
from the approach toward the garage, and then back down toward the approach to meet the road. It is
not designed for back and forth driving across the driveway’s edges, let alone using fully loaded heavy
machinery. We didn’t know **** was going to operate his machines in this manner or we would not
have hired him. The fact remains **** did not have to be on our driveway to complete the work, he did
so to save time and costs.
We didn’t choose our concrete contractor, our builder did, and we were given no options. We recently
relocated from across the country and knew no contractors, and have no biases. The bid for the other
contractor was presented because ACUITY’s insured, ****, said he’d have the concrete fixed for us out
of his pocket (before deciding to turn his damages into ACUITY). The bid from *** ******** was ****’s
contractor recommendation for the company he wanted to use for our repairs.
ACUITY is wrong that we’re unhappy with our contractor, and ACUITY continues to make up random
information such as we are using a different contractor to achieve better quality and thicker concrete.
We were not soliciting a bid for thicker concrete. A typical 2x4 form will have a nominal 3 ½ inch height,
because the actual size of 2x4 dimensional lumber is 1 ½ inches by 3 ½ inches. It is our expectation that
the bid provided by *** ******** would use the same 2x4 forms as ** ******** did to achieve a 3 ½
inch thick pour.
This being said, we’re fine to have ** ******** come and redo the work to the specifications it was prior
to **** starting the job. This includes removal and replacement of all the cracked sections per the scope
of work outlined in the bid we submitted from *** ********. We have no probem if ACUITY wishes to
directly hire ** ********, we don’t need monetary compensation in hand. We do need our driveway
restored in all cracked sections.
ACUITY continues to use terms such as “feel” without backing up their feelings with facts. Four Seasons
damaged our driveway and we should not have to be dealing with all the red tape and difficulty brought
forth by the actions of ACUITY’s insured. We will contact ACUITY directly after we determine our next
course of action.
*** and ********* ******

Business Response: Please be advised ACUITY, A Mutual Insurance Company, received the latest Better Business Bureau complaint from Mr. and Mrs. ****** on October 2, 2015. 

As you are aware from our previous correspondence, ACUITY insures ****’s Four Season Yard Care and has coverage for their business liability under a commercial general liability policy. Mr. and Mrs. ****** hired our insured to do landscaping and install a retaining wall.  During the course of work, damage was found to the driveway.  Mr. and Mrs. ****** state our insured is the sole cause of this damage, as in order to complete his work he had to drive his vehicles across the driveway.

            Mr. and Mrs. ****** state ACUITY is making claims based on what we “feel” and not the facts.  As previously stated, it is ACUITY’s position the driveway was being put to its intended use by our insured.  Our inspection indicates the driveway contractor was negligent for faulty installation.  Mr. and Mrs. ****** have not provided any evidence to support our insured’s action was the proximate cause of the damages.

            As stated in previous correspondence, ACUITY feels our insured’s actions were not the reason the driveway cracked. However, in an effort to settle a disputed claim, we conceded to a crack in section 20 of the driveway.  ACUITY has offered $3,000 to settle the claim.  At this time, this offer remains open to Mr. and Mrs. ******. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.  Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

10/9/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Adjuster came to our home to inspect storm damage. Roof on home/garage is missing shingles and has hail damage. Adjuster claims there is not enough storm damage to cover the deductible and that the shingles that are on the roof have had a lot of product concerns. He can not say that the damage is all storm or if it is due to product malfunction. So, he found some shingles that are the same as the "bad" ones on the house and wanted us to replace the damage with those? I have emailed my concerns to the adjuster and have gotten no response.

Desired Settlement: New adjuster to re-evaluate the damage and fix per the policy.

Business Response: The insured has an ACUITY Homeowners 3-Special form policy (******) which insures “against risks of direct loss to property.”  Covered
property losses are settled at a replacement cost value for that part of the building damaged for “like construction and use on the same premises.”  However, we do not insure loss for, in part, for “Faulty, inadequate or defective: design, specifications, workmanship, repair…..materials used in repair, construction,
renovation or remodeling.” The policy reads, in part, that we will “pay only that part of a covered loss which exceeds $1,000.” 

The insured reported a storm claim to ACUITY on 08/26/2015 with a reported storm date of 06/29/2015.  I made same day contact with the insured.  An
inspection of the insured’s home located at ***** **** **** ***** ***** *** *** ***** *** ***** was completed on 09/01/15. I met with the insured and their
contractor.  The findings from this home inspection are as follows:

This was a storm which came from the northwest and traveled southeast.  The property is heavily covered by trees/tree limbs which face north and northwest. The home and detached garage have vinyl siding.  I found multiple, focused mechanical indentations located along the west fascia of the home.  These findings are not
consistent with hail damage. This is located above the west porch area. Inspection of the northwest facing wooden porch area revealed no evidence of
latent hail markings or splatter. Inspection of all exterior screens revealed no evidence of hail impact or, in fact, any hail splatter. Inspection of the
homes fascia revealed no evidence of hail damage or latent hail splatter.  Organic growth and debris was found to be accumulated on the lower, north fascia. This organic growth and debris was not disturbed by this storm. There was no evidence of latent markings/splatter from hail contact.  The insured’s chosen contractor drew my attention to a lower section of fascia on the north side of the home toward the back.  The insured’s fascia is white in color. The contractor pointed to multiple dark grey spots on the fascia and said that it was "hail splatter." Of note, this area faces north and is quite shaded by the trees surrounding the north
side of the home.  It is my opinion that the dark grey spots were organic growth/mold accumulation.  There is a detached three stall garage at the property. The west facing fascia on the garage shows no evidence of hail impact or damage. There is notable debris and dirt present on the fascia, none of
which is disturbed. The detached garage had a significant wood pile on the east side. The siding in this area showed several mechanical locations of damage
which is not consistent with hail. The wood is piled directly onto the east facing the siding. While present at the property, I observed a large garbage truck
arrive and remove trash from a large, industrial, trash container. The container is also located on the east side of the garage. The south side of the
garage has an entry door. This door is wooden and painted. I observed no hail impressions or latent evidence of hail splatter on the paint or wood. On the south side of the garage, which is the direction which the garage doors face, I observed multiple pink chalk markings where the contractor had marked prior to my arrival. The contractor stated that he marked all of the hail damage. Of note, these were on the south side of the garage. The garage also has approximately a two foot eve. None of the markings that I observed were consistent with hail. Of important note, one of the indentations which the contractor marked and said was hail had scratch marks impressed in the indentation and these scratch marks removed some of the paint on the south facing fascia.  Linear and vertical marking was present as well. Both are not consistent with hail, but rather mechanically caused. One marking, on closer inspection, also had scratch markings but also had a residual
fragment/splinter of wood. There was a second marking which also had a residual fragment/splinter of wood. The insured was present during the inspection and
conversation with the contractor. I showed the insured what the contractor was saying was hail and the insured stated that it could be from his children
throwing acorns.  I looked down on the ground and saw that there were several dozen acorns on the ground.  There is a small detached building toward the
east section of the property. This is the building on the property which is the most exposed to the elements.  This has a wooden and painted fascia. That fascia showed no evidence of hail damage, latent hail splatter markings, or recent removal of paint.  Inspection of the garage roof revealed the roof to have a CertainTeed fiberglass shingle product, architectural in style. The south slope showed significant installation issues which were identified, marked and photographed. The eve of the south slope had approximately two shingles missing. Closer inspection showed the underlayment to be weathered and the roofs plywood was soft. The east slope showed this same installation issue pattern.  This shingle had a significant amount of crazing and there are multiple areas where gaps have formed in the
shingle. These are not storm related but rather a widely known product defect and manufacturing issue. In addition, there were multiple areas of thermal
cracking present. I was unable to identify a single hail strike on any section of ridge, the most vulnerable to hail. After inspecting the entire roof, I was
able to identify two potential hail hits on the shingle.  Inspection of the residence roof revealed the identical product defect and manufacturing issues present on the shingles.  I inspected the metal valleys and located no evidence of hail impressions. Two of the metal valleys each had a single distinct crease which was not consistent with hail and in the opposite direction of this storm. After inspecting the entire roof, I was able to identify a single hail hit.

After completion of the inspection, I met with insured and contractor and explained my inspection findings. 

The maximum number of shingles needed to address the property damage to the insured’s home is five.  To assure the shingles were available; I completed an on-site test of the insured’s shingle and forwarded my test findings to **** ************* ****  **** ************* **** is an unbiased and independent testing laboratory which determines like kind and quality material and finds matching replacement materials.  The **** ************* **** report (Control Number: **********) was
received and reviewed.  The insured’s shingle was identified as a CertainTeed New Horizon, Horizon Blue in color and was available through Discounted Materials, Inc.  The shingles needed to affect the repair are on hold for the insured through 10/03/15.  I completed a repair estimate which accounted for the materials cost and labor to affect the needed repair.  This estimate total was $562.48.

I followed up with the insured on 09/03/2015 by phone.  I provided the insured with a detailed explanation of my inspection and inspection findings.  The insured communicated to me that she understood.  I explained the ITEL Laboratory, Inc. testing, the report findings and that the shingles necessary to affect the repair have been identified, located, and reserved.  I explained to the insured that the estimate to affect the repairs is less than their deductible.  The insured stated that she understood. 

On 09/03/2015, I emailed the insured and thanked them for allowing me the opportunity to inspect their beautiful home.  I attached a copy of my completed estimate and the **** ********** report.  I explained to the insured that the shingles necessary to affect the repairs to the home have been reserved through 10/03/15.  I explained the cost of the materials and directed their attention to the **** ********** report for instructions on how they may secure the
shingles.  I explained also that the cost of repair to the home falls below their $1,000 deductible and that I would be closing the claim.  I invited the insured
to contact me with any questions.

There has been no contact by the insured to ACUITY which has not been responded to.  ACUITY is always available to our customers and would invite the insured to contact me with any questions or concerns they have.  

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

First of all, "understanding" does not me the same as "agree". The adjuster went into the reasoning of why Acuity would not pay for the roof but I did not agree with the outcome.  And I did follow up directly with the adjuster via email ( on Sept 14) and did not get a response.  My rates continue to increase each year with 0 claims and when I actually have a legitimate claim I get the resolution of fixing it myself with "defective" shingles that he claims is why there is damage to begin with.  


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

Business Response: If the insured does not agree with our damage assessment, the insured has the right to proceed with an Appraisal per their policy.  The insured was issued a Homeowners Homeowners 3-Special Form policy, ******.  Following
is the appraisal language within said policy:



6. Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either may demand an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will choose a competent and impartial appraiser within 20 days after receiving a written request from the other.  The
two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we may request that the choice be made by a judge of a court of record in the state where the residence premises is located. The appraisers will
separately set the amount of loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the amount agreed upon will be the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by
any two will set the amount of loss. 

Each party will:

a. Pay its own appraiser; and
b. Bear the other expenses of the appraisal and umpire equally.

If the insured would like to proceed with exercising their right of appraisal, we ask that the insured advise us who their appraiser will be and we will proceed accordingly.  Per the appraisal language, the insured is responsible for the cost of their appraiser and for half of the cost of the umpire fees.

We are always here to answer any questions and address any concerns the insured has and we would welcome the insured to do so.  

7/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have an open medical case involving my lower back,feet and possibly more.My insurance policies including Medicare requires that any back and feet related issues are to be billed to my case(work Comp)etc.This includes all pain clinics and medications provided relating to my injuries.I have been asked to supply all info needed to proceed with payment of out of pocket expenses,480.00 for pain medication.I have given all that I can and have given info they have already and then some.Why must I go through this to get what I am entitled.She keeps telling me they need more and that is wrong,they have all they need!!.They even closed my case before and could not submit to my clinic for billing,so I used my regular ins to pay for services.Please help me get my out of pocket back.Mrs V****** stopped relating with me.

Desired Settlement: I just want my out of pocket monies reimbursed to me to( ly6873).

Business Response:

Mr. *******'s claim was settled and the file was closed on 7-16-13. The injuries were his low back and feet and the medical was open subject to our defenses.

On 4-21-15 I received a voice message from Mr. ******* stating he understood his claim was closed. I returned his call and he stated he went to ******* and they told him his file was closed. He said he used his health insurance to pay for the treatment. He filed for medicare part a and applied for part b and his health insurance shut him down now that he is on medicare.  He was getting injection in his neck and back and the prescriptions were $470.00 per month. He is also diabetic but understood I would not be paying for that medication. Acuity is not responsible for his neck issues.

Mr. ******* was represented by ******** ******** and I recommended he call him for advice. He said he did but the attorney never got back to him.

I have sent the file for an Independent Medical Evaluation which will be done on 7-8-15 to obtain a second opinion as to whether the present condition is related to the 2009 injury. If it is related I will be reimbursing Mr. ******* for his out of pocket expenses.

Business Response:

Under MN Statute 176.155 Subd 1 The injured employee must submit to examination by the employer's physician upon the employer's request in order to prevent termination of benefits. As stated in my previous responses if the doctor finds the present complaints related to the original injury which occurred on 5-11-2009 Acuity will be responsible for treatment. If Mr. ******* refuses to attend the examination on 7-8-15 benefits will terminate until he decides to attend an exam.

The proper venue to go thru for any disputes on a Worker's Compensation Claim is the Division of Labor and Industry. Their phone number is ###-###-####. Mr. ******* may want to consider talking to someone in the Department to have his questions answered. The reason for the second opinion is to determine causation of Mr. *******'s present complaints.

Consumer Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 



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




6/25/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Home Owners Insurance Company refuses to pay for damage to my roof covered by a storm during my policy period. They gave two different accounts of denial even after the appeal and have not assisted or given information on the next step. Senior field representative ***** ******* has ignored information, used false weather data to deny claim and has failed to speak with those we have included in resolving this issue. She is rude, unprofessional and should not work for an A.M. Best A+ Rated company. She still despite seeking legal action and filing a dispute with the Dept of Insurance has not picked up the phone for us to resolve this issue or rightful enforced our policy upon purchase of our home. Company has just taken our money monthly but not helped us one bit in the right or truthful manner. ***** can be reached at ###-###-####

Desired Settlement: Repair my roof according to the terms of my homeowners policy in correlation with the information provided by multiple sources

Business Response:

I am writing to respond to the above-referenced complaint.  The allegations are contrary to the facts, as well as the information provided to Acuity’s insured, **** *****.  After Acuity carefully reviewed the claim and information provided to it, as well as hiring an independent architect who is a Haag Certified Inspector, it was determined that the incident causing the subject damage occurred outside of the relevant coverage period.  Mr. ***** was provided information and the reasons for the denial throughout the investigation process. 


Specifically, after Mr. ***** reported the claim, Acuity hired an independent adjuster to inspect Mr. *****’s roof.  Following the inspection, Acuity denied the claim because the alleged damages were below Mr. *****’s deductible.  Mr. ***** was informed in writing of the denial on March 24, 2015.  Mr. ***** then appealed the decision by requesting an appraisal of the property.   During the appeal process, Acuity hired an independent architect to inspect the roof damages.  The architect determined that the damages did not occur during our policy period based upon his inspection and his own review of historical weather data (NOAA).  After reviewing the historical weather data (Verisk Climate) it was determined that there was no storm that could have caused damage to his roof during the policy period.  The architect determined that the damages did not occur during our policy period based upon his inspection and his own review of historical weather data (NOAA).  The report was provided to Mr. ***** on May 13, 2015.  Mr. *****’s claim was denied again on May 29, 2015 based on information discovered during the appeal process.  Based on the policy provisions, the appeal decision is the final step in the process and Acuity’s decision to deny coverage.  Acuity has no knowledge and has not been notified of any legal action or dispute with the Department of Insurance.


Neither Mr. ***** or his contractor provided any information to rebut the findings of the independent adjuster or architect.  Acuity invited input from Mr. ***** throughout the investigation.   Therefore, there are no grounds to support the complaint and the matter should be closed. 



Business Response:

Please accept the following as Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Acuity”) response to **** *****’s position submitted to the BBB on June 11, 2015.  Mr. ***** continues to inaccurately represent the facts of the claim and particularly, his conversations with ***** *******, the Acuity representative assigned to his claim. His personal attacks toward Ms. ******* regarding her professionalism, and claims that she ignored information and falsified information are unfounded.  As explained below, Acuity relied on information from independent sources, including weather data and opinions of experts in deciding to deny Mr. *****’s claim.  All of that information was provided to Mr. *****.  Further, Ms. ******* did not discourage Mr. ***** from filing a claim.


 In addition, Mr. ***** mischaracterizes his interactions with Ms. *******’s ********** Scott B******.  Mr. B****** has never spoken to either Mr. ***** or Mr. *****’s contractor, Chuck H*** from ***.  Mr. B****** only emailed the hail and wind history reports to Mr. ***** in Ms. *******’s absence.


In sum, Acuity carefully reviewed Mr. *****’s claim for alleged damage to his roof in light of the relevant policy, effective May 19, 2014 to May 19, 2015.  After investigation, which included two separate inspections, Acuity determined the damage to the roof occurred outside of the relevant policy’s coverage period.  Acuity’s position to deny the claim is unchanged.    


After first receiving a notice of a loss from Mr. ***** on March 9, 2015, Acuity carefully reviewed the claim. Acuity hired an independent adjuster, Ryan C*****, to inspect Mr. *****’s roof. Mr. *****’s contractor, ***** **** from ***, was present during the inspection on March 13, 2015.  Mr. C***** was unable to conclude that any of the damage was from wind or hail.  Nevertheless, since any discernable damage to Mr. *****’s roof was minimal and below the applicable deductible, Acuity initially denied Mr. *****’s claim by letter dated March 24, 2015.  In the denial letter, Mr. ***** was advised that if he was not in agreement with Acuity’s assessment, the next step would be to implement the “appraisal clause” of the policy. 


On April 17, 2015, *** **** called and informed Ms. ******* that Mr. ***** wanted a second opinion based on the “appraisal clause” in the subject policy.  Mr. ***** misinterprets and misrepresents the operation of this clause.  As explained in Ms. *******’s March 24, 2015 letter to him, the policy provides that when an appraisal is demanded “each party will choose a competent and impartial appraiser.”  If the appraisers disagree on the amount of the loss, the differences will be submitted to “an umpire” who is selected by the appraisers or a judge.


          Therefore, the policy did not require that Acuity select an appraiser that was mutually acceptable to Mr. *****.  Acuity retained CSHQA architect Ted I***** and construction professional Tim H***** to inspect the roof.  Both of these individuals have significant experience in roof inspections related to wind or hail damage and have various certifications for such work.  Mr. ***** had the opportunity to select an appraiser, but did not do so.  Thus there was no information to rebut the findings of CSHQA. 


As a result of the inspection on April 28, 2015, CSHQA found that the roof had some evidence of hail and wind damage, but also had evidence of installation defects to the shingles. Nevertheless, based on the inspection and review of historical weather data from NOAA, CSHQA concluded the damage occurred prior to Mr. *****’s purchase of the property and effective date of his Acuity policy.  The weather data was emailed to Mr. ***** on May 7, 2015.  The report from CSHQA was provided to Mr. ***** on May 13, 2015.  On that same day, Ms. ******* also spoke to Mr. ***** advising that he was going to pursue legal action and that his attorney would contact Mr. ******* the next day.  Ms. ******* did not advise Mr. ***** to get an attorney as he claims. 


After reviewing the report from CSHQA and obtaining additional historical weather data from Verisk Climate, Acuity determined there was no evidence of a storm that could have damaged Mr. *****’s roof during the relevant policy period. As a result, and based on the new information discovered during the appraisal process, Mr. *****’s claim was denied again by letter dated May 29, 2015.  


Although Acuity invited Mr. ***** to provide additional information that could assist in Acuity’s coverage determination, neither he or *** **** have provided any information to Acuity to rebut the findings of CSHQA. Throughout the claim process, Acuity invited input from Mr. *****. 


Since *** **** is neither an insured nor an attorney representing Mr. *****, Acuity was not required to speak with him, but initially did so as a courtesy to Mr. *****.  Ms. ******* left a voicemail for *** **** on May 31, 2015 advising him that she would be happy to discuss the claim with Mr. *****.  Thus, Ms. ******* has not been “passive” about speaking to Acuity’s insured, Mr. *****, as alleged.       


The first time that Acuity was made aware of any additional information regarding weather data was when Mr. ***** filed a complaint with the Idaho Department of Insurance and included a letter  addressed “To Whom This May Concern” from *** **** dated June 10, 2015.  It is disingenuous for Mr. ***** to claim that Acuity did not consider information when he did not provide the information directly to Acuity.  Nevertheless, a review of that information does not change Acuity’s decision to deny coverage. The data only indicates a period of rain between 8:53 pm and 10:11 pm on August 30, 2015.  There are two wind gusts reported between 8:51 pm and 8:53 pm. There are no indications in the report of hail. 


Further, whether other roofs in the area may have been repaired is speculative and does not have any bearing on Acuity’s coverage obligations under the applicable policy.  This is not evidence that Mr. ***** sustained covered damage to his roof as claimed.  The reasons that repairs were made to other roofs in the area are unknown. In addition, it is unknown what type of insurance coverage the other property owners may have and, importantly, the applicable coverage terms of their policies.


In addition, Mr. *****’s position that the damage occurred after his purchase of the home based on inspections prior to his purchase is also has no impact on Acuity’s decision.  Acuity’s position to deny coverage for the claim is based on the evidence analyzed by CHSQA regarding the condition of the roof and weather history.  Acuity was not required to consider any pre-purchase inspections.  There is no evidence of “bias” with the information relied on by CHSQA and then confirmed with the weather history obtained directly by Acuity.    


We trust this explains our position in this matter. We believe there are no grounds to support Mr. *****’s complaint and request the matter be closed. 



Consumer Response:

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]


**** *****


 The back and forth of the situation is ridiculous. Acuity misrepresentation of the facts and evidence to this point are to continue to deny the claim. We do not accept acuity a option based on the evidence we have. 

5/15/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
4/12/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: We were a former customer of Acuity for our G&L insurance. Our yearly premium was paid in full. As is standard practice we had an insurance audit. As a result of this audit we were hit with an additional $1250 charge and no explanation. When I wrote to Acuity about this, he wrote back that it was because they assert that my role changed and that instead of doing sales and administrative work, I was performing field work with my crews (we do construction). Nothing could be further from the truth and there is no data to support this. In fact we have plenty of supporting data to show that I performed primarily sales. I presented this information to Acuity and they have failed to respond directly to me. Instead they have engaged collection activities.

Desired Settlement: I would like this issue to go away. I would also like someone at Acuity who is both senior level and principled to acknowledge that they have made a mistake and to correct it, instead of exerting the brute force that a billion dollar company has the capacity to do.

Business Response:

In review of the notes on the audit that was completed, it was indicated that both *** ********* of the company and his wife informed the auditor that the primary duties of *** ********* were sales in nature.  In addition to this, both indicated that time was also spent in the field and that he was involved in direct supervision of employees on the job site.  This activity requires *** ********* to be classified the same as the insulation crew.  This classification is also consistent with the prior year audit.  The prior year audit was completed by a different auditor who was told that *** ********* did initial assessment, proposals, oversees crews, direct supervision, and gets the jobs started in the morning.  Based on two auditors being provided with the same information, we believe the audits have been processed correctly.

Consumer Response:

Acuity is not recognizing the fact that they are capable of making mistakes with regards to how I use my time.  

They have acknowledged in the response below that they made a mistake about the type of the materials that we use and correctly they are adjusting this to reflect the truth.  They conducted an audit and it was during this audit that they mis-categorized our materials.  

It was during this same audit that they assumed that my role had changed from being primarily sales and administration to doing field work.  Again, this is incorrect.  I did not do field work during this period.  I had communicated to the auditor that we had just purchased a foam machine September of 2014 (after the annual insurance period being audited) and that I was planning to be hands on with it.  I suspect that he misunderstood this to mean that I was hands on with the business during the disputed insurance period.  He made a mistake with the materials.... he also made a mistake with my activities.

I put on over 22,000 miles on my personal vehicle during this period visiting with clients. I have hundreds of proposal and assessments that were done in this period.  If Acuity would closely look at our 1099's and payroll data they should be able to see that there were no sales people under 1099 subcontractor status. There were also no sales people on payroll.  A simple analysis would show that with increasing sales, someone has to be pulling the business in. With my pulling in the business and all the other assorted activities, there would be no time to be doing attic field work as they asserted as the justification for increasing the insurance basis by $28,600.  They are simply incorrect and are not willing to accept the fact that they have made multiple mistakes here.

Attached is the letter Acuity wrote justifying the $28,600 increase they put on our payroll.  In this explanation they state that my roll shifted from Sales and Consulting to be 'more heavily involved in insulation work'. This is incorrect and someone with some sensibility should be able to see that.

Acuity also claims that in the prior 7/12-7/13 period the audits were consistent with the 7/13-7/14 period. If that is the case then why did they not increase the insurance basis in 7/12-7/13 by the $28,600 as they had done last year?  The insurance premium based on payroll for the 7/12-7/13 period was about $1200 less then in the 7/13-7/14 period.  

Acuity had incorrectly billed us $5200 for the 7/12-7/13 period. They recognized there mistake after the audit and cut us a check for $1400.  The premium in 7/13-7/14 was based on the previous annual period and we paid this amount of $3800 in full.  It was then that the provided us with another $1250 bill which we vehemently dispute.

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]


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



Business Response:

The classifications are assigned based on the information provided at the time of the audit.  On the first completed audit, the managing member of the LLC wrote the following on the mail form provided for the audit for the job duties of the managing member: “Managerial, QA, customer & business partner relations”.  There is no mention of direct supervision of employees or field work.  The next audit was a physical audit and the auditor was told the following for the managing members work duties: “He does initial assessment proposals, oversees crew/direct supervision, gets the jobs started in the morning”.  On the last audit, the following was provided for the managing members work duties: “Sales, direct supervision, insulation”.  It is clear that the managing member is involved in sales work, we are not disputing that.  The direct supervision and any insulation work would require the managing member to be classified the same as the field crew regardless of how much sales work is done.  This does reflect a change from the first audit and the information provided for that audit.

On the audit for the period of 7-8-13 to 7-8-14, the auditor has noted that there were some independent contractors who worked a short time at the beginning of the period that were involved in sales activities.  The amount reported was very small and the auditor was told that they were not committed to the company and the managing member could do a better job than these persons.  The auditor was also told that there were no subcontractors hired.  We can review any disbursement journal, general ledger report, or 1099 report you would like to provide for this audit period regarding the subcontractors that are said to be used that were not originally reported.

The audit for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 term was estimated due to lack of cooperation in meeting with the auditor.  Numerous attempts were made to complete the audit with the audit being closed by the auditor after they were told by the wife of the managing member that the managing member was busy with a crew on the scheduled date and would not be available.  By the time this audit was completed and information provided, the 7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy was within a few weeks of expiring, therefore the 7-8-13 to 7-8-14 policy could not have been adjusted based on the exposures from the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 audit.  We have reviewed the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 exposures and found the originally estimated amount still being used; we will revise the audit accordingly.  This revision will eliminate any outstanding balance and a refund check will be mailed.

The policy for the 7-8-12 to 7-8-13 covered general liability and commercial inland marine.  The initial premium for this policy was $4,513.  When the audit was completed, a refund check was sent in the amount of $1,460.  The refund is based on the difference between the estimated exposures and the actual exposures determined at the time of the audit.  Previous years that generated additional premium were the result of actual exposures exceeding estimated exposures, not “mistakes” made by either party.  The premium for the 7-8-13 / 7-8-14 period were based on the estimated exposures provided for that period.  The premium for this period was $4,781 when issued.  The bill that followed was from the audit as actual exposures exceeded the estimated exposures.


2/28/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was injured at a restaurant that Acuity insures. I ate a foreign object in my food that caused a broken tooth. I filed a report and a few weeks later, Acuity contacted me with some forms to fill out. I filled the required forms and sent them back. A few days passed without me hearing anything from the adjuster. I then proceeded to call, and left a message on voice mail stating that I was checking on the status of the paperwork that was sent days prior. When I finally received a callback the adjuster told me that the paperwork was received and that I needed to send any bills that were related to the injury and I would be reimbursed for those. So I send the bill to the adjuster. A few days pass and I get an email from the adjuster saying that a reimbursement check was issued. In a reply email I asked about compensation for the permanent damage to my otherwise perfect teeth, at which time He stated that as soon as all the bills were sent, we would talk about injury settlement. It has been about 3 days since the last bill was sent. I have emailed the adjuster on several occasions with no response.

Desired Settlement: I would like to speed this process up. Get done and be done! 

Business Response:


This will address the BBB item filed by ****** ***** for the above captioned claim. Mr. ***** alleges that he injured his tooth due to a foreign object in his food which occurred at the insured’s restaurant located in ******** ****. According to our ******* *******, the injury was first reported to them on 1/13/2015 and an incident report was completed.

The first notice to Acuity Ins. was on 1/20/2015. Contact was made with both the insured and Mr. ***** the same day. Mr. ***** declined to provide his social security number so a Social Security Request Form was sent to him on 1/20/2015 per the Medicare guidelines.

The first bill for $143.90 was received on 2/6/2015 and payment was issued the same day. The second bill of $86.35 was received and paid on 2/9/2015. Mr. ***** sent an email on 2/9/2015 stating his treatment had been completed and that he wished to settle his injury claim. I responded with an email on 2/13/2015 (Friday) advising him that I would be in contact on 2/16/2015 (Monday) to discuss settlement.

1/9/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
12/5/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: On Aug. 15, 2014, I opened my online banking portal and discovered that my checking account was overdrawn. I quickly transferred money from a savings account to cover this charge. I then looked at the reason why and discovered that Acuity Insurance Co. had charged me 5 times that month. I tried to contact my insurance agent, but his office is closed on Fri. afternoons. So I then called ***** **** and they confirmed the mistake. 4 $190.43 charges had gone through my account and there was still one pending. The customer service representative at the bank, sent the pending one back and credited my account for 3 of the 4 $190.43 charges. On Mon. I contacted my insurance agent and he called Acuity to put back the mistaken charges. They put back only 2 of the 3 mischarged debits. I had tried to deal with Acuity directly by giving them my bank statement, but they kept insisting that they got one returned and it was one of the three charges. i, however got charged for 4 payments per my bank statement. So they still owed me one. on September 9th, they again charged me another payment of Sept. 11, 2014 I was charged for $262.35, which my bank rejected because Acuity had not dealt with the previous month's overcharge. At this point I had wasted too much time trying to deal with this situation and I decided at my banks suggestion to cancel the policy and look for new insurance. So, i did just that. Acuity then sent the cancellation notice of Oct. 1, 2014. They said billing to follow. Okay, so they sent me the bill on Oct. 1 saying that i still owed from Aug. 22, 2014 through Oct. 1, the amount of $325.77. I figured this to be a fair charge for the 5 wks. so I paid it. Thinking it was finally over.... Wrong again, I received another letter from them today (dated Oct. 22, 2014), stating thank you for my payment of $325.77 and a collection payment notice that I still owed $380.86. I was livid. i called my agent and she said that when she called them, they wanted their money back from the 2 $190.43 payment that they had refunded me???? They should not have taken it to begin with. I believe them to be highly incompetent and radically encourage other consumers to stay away from Acuity. Thank God I did not have any accidents when I was insured with them. Please, maybe you can get them to make some sense of all this, I for one am very displeased. Sincerely, ******* *****

Business Response:

This policy was issued new on 5/5/2014. The insured's 3rd installment of $223.33 was returned
from her bank for insufficient funds on 7/14/14. The policy cancelled on 7/29/14. The insured
made an online payment for $47.80 and the underwriter agreed to reinstate the policy. The
agent requested that the policy be set up on Electronic Funds with new bank information. The
policy reinstated.
The mistake on ACUITYs part came when policy was reinstated and set up on EFT. The policy
was behind in payments and the incorrect number of installments were set up. Four
withdrawals were attempted from the insured's bank. One of the four was returned as an
unsuccessful payment. We were given documentation showing 3 were successful. We then
returned 2 of the three to the insured's account to correct the mistake. The insured and agent
were notified of the situation. ACUITY kept one of the installments as one was due. After we
returned the $380.86 (2 of the 3 payments) we were notified that the insured had stopped pay
on those 2 installments that we returned.
The insured lapsed for non-pay. Since the insured placed a stop payment on the two payments
requested in error, the refund for the two payments is due back to ACUITY.
Please find the attached documentation that we received from the insured showing the
payments and the summary showing that we returned these payments. This was prior to her
stopping payment on the payments. The agent requested a new bank statement to verify that
she received the refunds from ACUITY and she refused.
We are now billing the insured for the return of the refund. The insured had insurance 5/6/14 to
10/1/14. Please let us know if we should send a copy of explanation to insured again.

6/7/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Acuity insurance is denying us full reimbursement on our GMC Sonoma truck that was hit head on by their insured. Pictures of the accident scene clearly show their insured completely on the wrong side of the road with the collision completely a frontal head on collision. Our son had 3 options, honk his horn and apply his breaks (which he did), jump up onto the sidewalk (which he did not do) or veer into the lane of oncoming traffic (which he also did not do). The other driver's (Acuity's insured)first statement after the accident was that he did not see our truck until he looked up. Acuity admitted their driver was at fault, but assigned us 10% fault and is refusing to reimburse us the full value of our totaled truck which they valued at $2,302. The determination of our son's percentage of fault was made immediately after Acuity was informed that there would be no subrogation because we only carry liability on our truck. We have been without the use of our truck for four months now and do not have the money to replace it. We are simply asking for full reimbursement for an accident our son was unable to avoid. The policewoman's comment after I called her was that it was "very clear who was at fault in that accident and that she wished the insurance company wasn't doing that."

Desired Settlement: Full remibursment from Acuity in the amount of $2,302 for the loss of our vehicle upon receipt of which we will turn over the title of the vehicle to Acuity

Business Response: This letter will represent our response to your letter of May 21, 2014 regarding the above mentioned matter.
Our office had received a total of three complaints written by ***** ******. Those being to the State of Wisconsin - ****** ** *** ************* ********* ********** ** ******** and the ********* ******** *******’s office. We made a business decision after the third complaint to go ahead and reimburse the vehicle owner at 100% given the amount being withheld for comparative fault was only $187.40. The claim was therefore resolved on April 25, 2014 for the full amount of $2302.00.
Below is how we had responded to each of the other complaints; we wanted to share that with your office so you knew how we investigated the claim and had come to our initial decision.
We advised each of the other offices as follows:
This claim involves a motor vehicle accident where our insured’s 22 year old son, ******* ******* was a driver of his parent’s 1996 Mercury. The other vehicle driver was Mrs. ******’s son, ***** ******. Who was driving a 1995 GMC. We conducted an investigation into the facts of this accident, which included talking with both drivers, obtaining the police report and the review of vehicle photos, scene photos and a diagram of the loss location. Based on all that information we determined that our insured was the majority at fault and advised the vehicle owner that we were accepting

Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

13 Customer Reviews on Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Fusion Chart
Fusion Chart