Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/04/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

   
  Complaint: 23285045
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  On April 4, 2025, the insured, ***********, formally invoked the appraisal provision contained in the policy, which adheres to the mandatory appraisal clause outlined in California Insurance Code 2071. Once the appraisal process is invoked, the insurer's role shifts from that of a claims investigator to a participant in a limited-purpose adjudicative process. Attempting a second inspection following the denial of further payment in BAICs letter dated March 27, 2025, is improper and directly contradicts California law. The insurers demand contradicts established case law, including *** *. California Capital Ins. Co., Sharma v. Safeco, and Kacha v. Allstate, all of which emphasize that factual investigations must occur before or after, but not during, the appraisal process.

  California law treats appraisal as a statutorily binding mechanism. Once properly invoked, both parties are obligated to proceed in good faith under the terms of the appraisal clause. As the court stated in Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2006) 140 ****App.4th 1023, 1031, the appraisal provision in 2071 is not discretionary, but mandatory:

  
  "An appraisal provision is intended to establish a simple and informal method for the resolution of the limited issue of the amount of loss through a binding process."

  Judicial Enforcement of Appraisal Provisions: California courts have long upheld the enforceability of appraisal clauses in insurance policies:
  

  Saucelito L. & ********* *. ******** Co. (1884) 66 **** 253 [5 P. 232]: Appraisal clauses requiring submission of valuation disputes to disinterested appraisers were upheld.
  

  ****** Gardens of Encino *************** v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2000) 82 ****App.4th 648, 658: Appraisals are a form of arbitration.
  

  Appalachian Ins. Co. v. ************ (1982) 130 ****App.3d 818: Insurance appraisals are governed by California Code of Civil Procedure 1280 et seq.
  

  Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ******, the courts shall compel arbitration (including appraisal) where a valid agreement exists, and no statutory exceptions apply.

  Any attempt by BAIC to circumvent the appraisal process by re-opening its own claim investigation after invocation constitutes a breach of the policy's appraisal terms and frustrates the legislative purpose behind 2071.

  We request that BAIC avoids any further delay tactics and act promptly to fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations under California Insurance Code 2071
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********

  Business Response

  Date: 05/15/2025

  BBB Response
  Complaint # ********
  Claim Number 2024MVP0061
  Policy # MVP90012806
  
  Mr. Hallabis policy with **** covers damage to the Tenant improvements and Business personal Property.   Mr. ******* owns both the building and ***********, DBA: J & J Liquor.
  Mr. ******* is represented by The Law Offices of ****** ********.  
  
  Mr. Hallabis Building insurance is with ****************************.
  
  On March 27, 2025, we issued payment for the content manipulation necessary to facilitate repairs to the windows which were broken from the incident. The wall had been repaired at the time of our inspection.  Our estimate did not include repairs to the tile flooring as the inspection note no damage to the tile flooring other than a strip of tile that appeared to have been missing prior to the date of loss.
  
  On March 27, 2025, Mr. ******** submitted an estimate for $1,041,815.99 for a complete remodel of the entire store and repairs to the damaged wall and windows.  The estimate included the removal and replacement of the flooring, pack-out, pack back and 9 months of storage.  That day he also provided photos of the flooring which supported that the missing tile piece was present at the time of the incident and was removed during the repairs that were completed to the wall.    We had previously paid for the content manipulation to facilitate the replacement of the windows.
  
  On April 1, 2025, we responded to Mr. ******** in writing advising that we were unable to
  accept his estimate as prepared as it did not accurately reflect the necessary repairs to return the property to pre loss condition and included repairs that were unnecessary or not covered under the **** Policy.   Additionally, we advised that we would work with our flooring experts to determine if a like-kind and quality tile could be located and that would provide a uniform appearance. We again requested documentation to support the flooring ownership.
  
  That same day we received an email from Mr. ******** denying our access to re-evaluate the flooring and he demanded appraisal.  
  
  When there is a dispute between the parties as to the amount of the estimate Appraisal can be invoked by either party. However, in this case the appraisal demand is premature as Mr. ******** and Mr. ******* have not allowed us back on site to evaluate if the tile samples that have been located will allow for a uniform appearance in order for us to complete an estimate for repair or replacement. Additionally, they have not provided the documentation to support ownership of the tile flooring.
  

   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/23/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This company bonded a solar installation company who installed solar on my newly built home. The installers installed the solar panels incorrectly, causing them to all need to be moved. They did not patch all the holes they made on my brand new roof. Once the rainy seasons started, we had significant water damage starting to appear all around the home. The total damage was estimated to be $50,000 by a contractor I hired to fix it. The installers were no longer in business, but were bonded by EBIAC (this company). I reached out to them and they responded requesting various evidence, which was promptly and thoroughly provided. Then they went dark on me for more than 6 months, never denying or accepting my claim. They don't respond to emails or calls.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/26/2024

  What is the **** claim number?

  We cannot look-up a claim without a claim number.

  Thank you

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/15/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  
  Complaint: 21989132
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The insurance company is claiming that the contractor did not walk off the job, but he has not performed any work since February. The insurance company also claimed we have hired another contractor and rejected ****'s services, but that's false because in our last email we asked when **** will return to finish the project as agreed to in the contract. Please let us know what day **** will return to finish the contract.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************n our bond denial. The bond company also failed to acknowledge that we paid $17,500 for Solar and $25,000 for electric work, but our contractor has not completed either job.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/26/2024

  For a surety to pay on a contractors license bond, the claimant has to demonstrate the contractor violated the State of California Business and Professions Code Section 7000.

  
  The denial letter the claimant attached outlines the reasons why the claimant did not demonstrate that the contractor committed a willful and deliberate violation under the Code.

  
  In addition, the venue to dispute our denial is the State of California Department of Insurance, which the claimant has filed a complaint. 
  We stand by our denial.

   

  Business Response

  Date: 08/10/2024

  With all due respect, the complainant is not Business Alliance Insurance Companys customer with regard to the issues he is complaining about.  He is a customer of the contractor who is bonded with Business Alliance Insurance Company.  His BBB complaint is misplaced; it should be directed at the contractor with whom he has a dispute over their business dealings.  He filed a claim against the contractors bond and Business Alliance Insurance Company, in its role as the surety/bond company, has conducted a reasonable investigation before denying the complainants claim against the bond. Absent any new information or evidence to the contrary, our decision as previously conveyed to the complainant remains unchanged.  The complainant has been properly advised of the appropriate statutes governing claims against a contractors license bond.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/12/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Here is the- CLAIM#:B14620
  
  All the best,
  Keri

  Business Response

  Date: 06/12/2024

  We need the bond claim number in order to respond.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/17/2024

  Bond claim payouts are governed by the State of California Business and Professions Code Section 7000.  Any bond claim payout must meet the criteria outlined in the Code.

  The surety bond we issued was active from August 17, 2021 to August 17, 2022.  As a surety, we are only liable for certain violation(s) specified under the Code on the part of the job the occurred during the term of the surety bond.  According to the documentation provided to us by ****************, only the demo, yard clean-up and the pool steel work were completed during our term.  In addition, there does not appear to be any deviation from generally accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction in these areas of the contracted scope of work performed by the contractor.

  The deficiencies that are alleged related to finishes, which were completed outside of the term of the bond we issued.

  The claimant did submit a claim to the surety bond company that provided a bond after our term and was paid $17,500.  We do not know the terms of the settlement or what as paid for.

  Claimant also submitted a complaint to the State of ********************* of Insurance, which we cooperated with their investigation.  ************** agreed with Business Alliance Insurance Company and closed the file without action.

  We are highly regulated by the State of ********************* of Insurance and the Department is the relevant arbiter of disputes with complainants.  

  We consider this matter closed and the denial stands.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/23/2024

  With all due respect, the BBB is not, and cannot be, the arena to adjudicate this claim against the license bond that **** issued to Green ******** Creation Inc.As explained to **************** in our letter of June 18, 2024, there must be certain conditions that must be met before ****, as a surety company, can honor and pay a claim against a bond. Those conditions include, but are not limited to, the prerequisite of proving a willful and deliberate violation of certain sections of Business & Professions Code 7000 et seq on the part of a contractor,and that such violation(s) occurred during the effective date of the **** bond.  As further explained in our letter of June 18, the evidence shows that all of the claimed issues about the work completed by Green ******** relate to finishes that were completed well after the **** bond had been cancelled and was replaced by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America bond.  As you know, the effective date of the **** bond was from 8/17/2021 to 8/17/2022.  Green ******** started work on the project in late June of 2022 and completed,or substantially completed, it in the summer of 2023. We found no evidence of any violation occurring during the **** bond effective date, nor did we find that **************** raised any concerns about the work completed up until 8/17/2022, which comprises of mostly demo work, which was part of the work inspected and approved by the Los ****************** of ******** Safety on 9/26/2022.
  
  About ******************** comments of delayed payment, we are perplexed.  At no time did we advise her that the claim had been validated or payment for the claim against the bond was forthcoming.  As soon as we completed an investigation of the claim against the bond, we denied the claim.  This decision was articulated in our letter of 6/18/2024, which was based on the totality of the information and evidence that were provided by **************** and Green ********.  On this note, we must reject your false and baseless accusations that the denial was in retaliation to your filing of a complaint with the insurance commissioner.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/18/2024

   
  Complaint: 21840343
  
  I am rejecting this response because: We have submitted proof of payment from Travelers Bond Company twice. I have attached it again here. Also BAIC is claiming they have no responsibilty because of the time their bond was in place the demo, clean up and rebar was done. The main is*** is the rebar was done wrong and is poking through the plaster causing the pool to rust. We submitted proof of this as well. They admitted we had a claim but delayed payment then we were ignored for months. After filing this claim with the BBB a new agent/manager took over the claim in denied us with a couple of days. Our denial was in retaliation to our filing against them with the insurance commisioner, who advised us to *** them and our filing with the BBB. 
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/23/2024

   
  Complaint: 21840343
  
  I am rejecting this response because: This business continues to give false information as well as be dishonest. First off the original agent did indeed validate our claim and spend hours on the phone with us in conversation about this. He also was sent all the required documentation. Once we filed with the insurance commissioner and the BBB our claim was denied. They continue to state there is no evidence, despite the fact we sent it many times and they have admitted the overwhelming amount of evidence we have. Furthermore this company continues to receive the same complaints and is still in business to take money and not pay our per their responsibility. They have admitted here another bond company paid out due to the overwhelming evidence. Although the BBB can not force them to pay the claim, you can however make it know they are NOT a reputiable, honest company and should not be allowed to continue taking money. You can see by the hostile response the kind of people involved in this business. The ** blocked our email so we could not contact him. Have. you ever heard of a reputable business with nothing to hide doing this?
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/15/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  i do not KNOW who wrote this but they are NOT totally correct!

  i did send out the claim form in the form of a detailed Email and yes, i called a few people to leave messages and NEVER got a response until the other day!

  i did NOT harass anybody in the manner that they have False Indentified!

  yes, i was contacted by a claims adjuster and have STOPPED CALLING anybody else and am working strictly through her and providing her with any necessary documentation.

  i PERSONALLY do NOT appreciate being FALSE ACCUSED OF HARASSMENT AS my lawyer would NOT appreciate ME being falsely treated that way for Invalid Reasons!

  regarding:  a Restraining Order:  they are given usually to women or to people who are VICTIMS OF REAL CRIMES CAUSING PHYSICAL OR BODILY HARM!

  WHOEVER WROTE THIS EMAIL could actually BE SUED BY ME FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER!

  i have sent this False Allegation and Malicious Prosecution to My Lawyer for their files!

  thank you.

  sincerely yours,

   

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

  claimant

  /hps

  ******* at Garco Concrete Pro back on Wednesday, April 26, 2023 to Pull Out All Of The Weeds, Grass, etc. In My Backyard and Even Remove A Tree in the Front Yard because I did NOT want to have to Deal With Any More Weeds Growing In My Front Or Back Yard! That Was The Purpose In Hiring His Licensed Company To Begin With!The Construction Site/Project Information Is: ************************************************************The Home Owner Is ME: ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Cellular Phone Number Is: **************. My Email Address Is: ************************** or ****************************** The Construction Site Your Personal Family Residence? (Yes)Owner Of Construction Site: Cellular Phone Number: ************** Address: ************************************************************Contract Date: Wednesday, April 26th, 2023 Contract Amount: $48,000.00 Amount Paid On Contract: $48,000.00 Date Work Started: On Approximately Thursday, April 27th, 2024

  Business Response

  Date: 05/16/2024

  Claimant emailed a claim to several people in our office during the night of 5/14/2024 (Not to our claim email and not on a claim form - just a random email that looked like a phishing email).  The claim was sent from my email to our claims department shortly after 9:00 am on 5/15/2024 and was assigned to an adjuster later that morning.

  According to State of California Fair Claims Practices we have 15 days to respond to the claimant.

  The adjuster called the claimant at 10:30 am on 5/16/2024 and left a message.  The claimant called the adjuster back later in the morning of 5/16/2024 and they spoke.  Our adjuster called the claimant within 24 hours of receiving the claim assignment.  This is more than reasonable.

  The claimant was very premature in sending a complaint to the BBB.  In addition, the claimant sent the email multiple times to several staff members, called several staff members and left multiple voice mail messages to several staff members on the morning of 5/15/2024 (Most of the staff members are not in the claims department).  He was harassing our staff and if it continues we will seek a civil harassment restraining order on him.   

   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/06/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  UnansweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

   
  Complaint: 20282660
  
  I am rejecting this response because:they say that the bond cover is narrow I donnt know what that means. ****** I"m covered or not.They issued the bond. It is their duty to protect the obligy. I belive the company is violating the Bad Faith law. their covered contractor abandoned my project. I should be made whole
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business Response

  Date: 07/18/2023

  This complainant also filed a complaint with the Department of Insurance and we re-investigated his complaint and responded. While we understand his frustration the coverage provided under a license bond is narrow and was not triggered by his circumstances.  A copy of our letter to the complainant is attached for you reference.  

   

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

  CEO