ComplaintsforCentral Insurance Companies

• Initial Complaint

  02/14/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  To Whom It May Concern: I had a car accident on a Salt Lake Freeway on January 4, 2024. I was rear ended by a Mac Truck in while driving home. It was determined that I was not at fault. I contacted the Central Insurance Company as requested and they agreed to fix my car. ClaimsIndex:********** The estimate was about 7500 dollars. The body work on the car was completed around 2/06/24 when the body shop discovered that the transmission was not working. They contacted Central Insurance Company and they said they would send out their mechanic to inspect it. It took Hime about a week to get there, That was the last I heard until I received a voice message and an email from Central Insurance on 02/13/24 that stated that the transmission problem was not from the accident. They informed me that I would need to have my own car towed to a transmission place or the dealership pay for them to take apart my transmission and then they would determine if the accident was to blame and reimburse me. They also informed me I would have to turn in my rental car the next day as they were not covering it anymore. I contacted them to try to understand why they felt the transmission problem was not from the accident. A supervisor Named ******** in their Salt Lake City Branch said their mechanic had determined by looking at the repaired car that this was the case. When I explained that the car was working fine before the accident and I had not seen it since she said that "my body shop would not put the car up on the lift for the mechanic to look underneath and because of that they decided that they would not cover it." I was obviously upset at this point and told her that it was not my body shop, and they had approved it. I could not believe that they decided that the transmission problem was not caused by being rear-ended by a mac truck on the freeway, and that their mechanic had not even looked underneath the repaired car. I have now had to contact my insurance and take care of it.

  Business response

  02/20/2024

  Our insured Bar ** ****** rear-ended Mr. ****’s 2018 Ford Focus, our appraisal company reviewed the damages based on photos submitted by his shop, Tomlinson Custom Body and Paint in the amount of  $7073.68.  Mr. **** provided a picture of the damages and the estimate that was paid.   After the shop completed the body repair to the vehicle, they indicated that Mr. ****’s vehicle would not go into reverse.   Central sent out Centro, a mechanical appraisal company and was advised that there was no impact to the transmission and a teardown would be required to determine the cause of the damage.    It should be noted that the 2018 Ford Focus has 91,040 miles on it.     We advised Mr. **** that if it is deemed related then we would take care of the damages, however we could not pay if deemed not related.   Mr. **** has filed a claim with his own insurance company and they are pending the teardown and the diagnostic as well.   

  Customer response

  02/20/2024

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: My car transmission was working great before I was hit by a Mac-Truck that did $7500 worth of damage to my car. How they figure a collision of that magnitude might not be the cause of my transmission is beyond me. I haven't seen the car or driven it since it has gone in. The responsibility has been shifted to me to foot the bill for everything concerning the transmission, and they can then decide if they want to cover it. What a coincidence that the transmission would just decide to quit at the moment of impact but not be caused by it. I have now had to bring my insurance into this and I have a $500 dollar deductible and a claim that goes against me. So, do I accept their judgement. NO!!! On top of that the Central Insurance agent told me on the phone that they would have covered it if the Body Shop would have put it up on the lift. She blamed me and called it My Body Shop.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ****

  Business response

  02/22/2024

   At this time, we need confirmation regarding the cause of the transmission issue.    Once the teardown has been completed and a diagnostic performed, we will be able to determine the cause the transmission issue.   Per our conversation with Mr. ****'s insurance company they are requesting the same.     

  Customer response

  02/22/2024

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Your insurance supervisor here in Salt Lake (********) told me on the phone when I asked why the transmission wasn't being covered that if the people from "my body shop"  would have put my car up on the lift then we wouldn't be having this conversation. At that point I was incensed that she called it my body shop and that a guy who was sent to look at my transmission determined that the accident didn't cause it when he didn't even look at it. I also received a letter from Felicia the adjuster that said it has been determined that the transmission was not caused from the accident. The way I have been dealt with has been demeaning and unprofessional. Now I am paying for the towing and the transmission. I have had to bring my insurance into this so I can still have a rental car to get to work. MY CAR WAS RUNNING GREAT BEFORE IT WAS HIT! NOW IT IS NOT AND I AM PAYING FOR IT. We will have to see how this comes out before I agree to let it go!!!!!!!

  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ****

• Initial Complaint

  02/06/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 11/19/2023, a deer jumped over a guardrail and made direct contact with my vehicle while on i81 in Virginia. My SRS system deployed all of the airbags in the vehicle which in turn resulted the vehicle being declared a total loss 11/23/23. I began the claims process with ***** ****** on 11/20/23. I was never once offered a rental vehicle, but after over a week, I was able to reach out to my agent who assisted in getting me into a rental. My policy had up to $3000.00 in rental coverage, but I was only permitted to keep the rental for a weeks time, totaling just over $500.00. I relayed my payoff information to ***** on 12/4/23, followed up with him again 12/6, again on 12/11, and again on 12/20 when I received a letter from the lienholder that stated a INCOMPLETE loss packet was submitted and as a result no action would be taken on my claim. At this time I express my concern that this claim had surpassed the 30 day mark with no progress. I also expressed the financial burden I was incurring by being responsible for paying on a vehicle that I no longer had in my possession. I then followed up with ***** again on 1/8/24 asking him to update me on this claim. The automatic reply I received assured me that his mailbox was monitored and that my file was important to him, however I never heard anything even after leaving a voicemail for ***** ****** (as instructed). ***** responded by informing me "gets alot of emails daily and it is quite possible yours got deleted." ***** also informed me that the request for a copy of the title and letter of guarantee was submitted on 12/5/23, but then invertedly revealed to my lienholder the request was not filed until on or around 12/12/23 through email correspondence he forwarded. I received an update 1/12/24 with those emails. On 1/17/24, I was informed he received the information needed, and the settlement was based off a letter from 1/27/24 versus the date of loss. As of today 2/6/24, my vehicle lien has not been satisfied.

  Business response

  02/13/2024

  Hello, after reading the complaint and reviewing the file, yes there were delays in completing the insureds settlement.  Delays revolved around the lienholder and getting a proper payoff on the account along with a copy of the title.  Once those items were received prompt payment was issued to the lienholder and payment for the overage issued to the insured.  We have recently issued some additional money for the out of pocket expense the insured sustained during this delay.  At this point, all damages have been settled with the insured.  

• Initial Complaint

  02/05/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  A storm came in August and we had damage to our home. Central insurance filed 5 claims for one storm totaling less than ****** cumulatively. This resulted in our CLUE report (insurance rating) being horrible and we are now fiscally uninsurable. We have had all of our insurance with central for over 20 years with no claims I can remember. Not only can we not leave central, they refused to pay for our roof damage because they said the water in our home came from the ACs. We paid out of pocket to have AC drain lines redone and drain beds redone to mitigate any chance of future leaks. We also paid out of pocket for water damage in our home (drywall replacement and paint). Fast forward a few weeks and another rain storm caused leaks in the same spot ruining the work we just had done. Central them said the leaks are coming from the roof but they are not responsible. We paid out of pocket to have the roof fixed. I reached out to all levels of management with no response from the *** or VP of claims. As a twenty year customer, that is now stuck with a ********************** that acts in bad faith, I hope no one spends their hard earned money paying premiums to Central.

  Business response

  02/27/2024

  Good afternoon,

  Please see Central's Response as attached. Thank you!!

  Business response

  02/27/2024

  [BBB Transcription via Attachment]

  To whom it may concern,
  I am writing in response to the complaint filed by *****************. We insured ************' residence under an H05 Homeowners Policy with a $1,000 deductible per occurrence.
  The first loss, claim ********** occurred on March 13, 2023 and was reported to us the same day. ********************* was ****************** representative assigned to investigate the loss, and review coverage and review damages. The loss was reported after the insured's spouse noticed paint pulling away from the crown molding in a guest bedroom. A contractor came out to look at the cabinets and advised that there appeared to be a leak behind the walls.
  Upon receipt of the claim, ***** reached out to ************* who indicated she noticed some bubbling on the wall in the downstairs guest bedroom and called her contractor. The insured's contractor found other areas with damages. He removed some crown molding and found mold behind it. The contractor believed it was a plumbing leak.
  We assigned an independent adjuster with Team One to view the damages and opine on the cause of loss. Before the adjuster could inspect, ************ called to indicate that they found the plumbing leak and had it repaired. ************ wanted to wait for his contractor's proposal before pursuing a claim further. The insured later called to advise that the repairs to fix the plumbing leak did not cost too much, so he did not want to pursue the claim. The claim was closed with no payment issued.
  On August 16, 2023, the insured reported another claim, indicating that on August 8, 2023 the residence was struck by lightning and there were damages to the roof, sprinkler system, upstairs A/C and pet fence. ********************* was ****************** representative assigned to handle this loss. **** contacted the insured on August 16, 2023 to confirm loss details and advise that he was assigning Guardian Adjusters and Appraisers, which is one of our independent adjusting firms, to inspect the damaged roof and A/C leak and determine the cause of loss.
  Our independent adjuster inspected the damages and reported back after the inspection. He indicated there was lightning damage to multiple electronics within the home and **** adjacent to the strike. The independent adjuster and the insured's roofer, did not observe any storm damage to the dwelling's roof. The insured called out an A/C technician to inspect the A/C unit and the technician indicated that they cleared a blockage in the condensation line.
  Based on our claims experience, the blockage in the condensation line is typically not the result of a lightning strike. It would also be a separate occurrence according to the policy provisions. We explained this to the insured on August, 20, 2023 and asked if they wished to pursue the A/C leak as a separate claim. The insured disputed the two occurrences, so Central sent an independent adjuster and an engineer to inspect the insured's roof. The engineer opined that the leaking was consistent with deficient flashings and was not a result of storm related forces. Central then paid the insured a total amount of $11,006.49 for the lightning damages less their $1,000 deductible.
  The insured also took issue with the claim history in the ******** (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) Report. We reviewed our records and found two losses have been filed:
  March 13, 2023Plumbing loss that was withdrawn by the insured with no payment. August 8, 2023Lightning damage with a total payout after deductible of 11,006.49.
  The ******** report identifies the August 8, 2023 claim as Claim 1, Claim 2 and Claim 3. Central handled this as one loss and opened reserves under the appropriate coverage for the single incident. A reserve was opened for dwelling damages, other structure damage and contents which correlates with the report; however, only one claim was filed by Central and only one deductible was applied. The incidents on the report all have the same date of loss.
  In reviewing the March 13, 2023 loss, the ******** report lists this incident as Claim 4 and Claim 5. This was also a single incident and only one claim was filed by Central. In this claim, Central opened a reserve for water damage and a reserve for mold. The reserves are set separately but fall under the one loss.
  In summary, we have a contractual responsibility with ***** Nexis to report all insurance claims through ********, regardless of whether there is a claims payout. With respect to this insured, we reported only two claims, one of which yielded a payout by Central. Central has no control over ***** Nexis regarding how they separate out claims that are reported to them by insurance carriers.
  Should you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.
  Sincerely,
  Central Mutual Insurance
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  10/13/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I had an incident in my vehicle and opened a claim on 9/7/23. On 9/18/23, the vehicle was deemed a total loss. As of 10/13/23, I have not received any pay out from the insurance company for the total loss. My auto loan with my bank was payed off and closed out. Central Insurance has yet to send me the balance of the total loss payout. I have made numerous calls and spoke to about 6 different people since the claim has been opened. No one is able to give me any information on the status of the payout. They claim the paperwork is all handled by 3rd parties, and do not have visibility to see the status. I called again today, 10/13/23, and now they are telling me I need to complete an authorization form and mail it to them, which they did not provide to me this entire time. I feel they are finding excuses to not send me the money and need help.

  Business response

  10/16/2023

  Central Mutual's insured caused damage to Mr. ******' vehicle. Central ran a valuation report which showed the vehicle would be a total loss (see attached) and sent it to Mr. ****** on September 18, 2023. Central then paid Mr. ******' lienholder in amount of $11,251.76. Prior to this compliant being received, Central Mutual spoke with Mr. ****** on October 13, 2023, and found out that he never received the required Power of Attorney form needed to complete the title transfer. Central resent the documents to him via email that same day and left a message for him to confirm receipt of the email.  The T/L settlement was $21,907.04, and Central subtracted out the $11,251.76 previously paid to Mr. ******' lienholder to leave $10,655.28 owed to Mr. ******. Central issued 50% of this remaining total loss balance, $5,327.64, owed to Mr. ****** the same day with an option for electronic funds transfer.  Mr. ****** is aware he needs to return the Power of Attorney form to Central to receive the additional $5,327.64. The balance will be issued to him upon receipt of that document.  As of 10/16/23, Central has not heard from Mr. ****** regarding any other questions or concerns.  

  Customer response

  10/16/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Claim was opened on 9/07.  On 9/18 car was deemed totaled.  Central did not send paperwork to my bank to pay off load until 10/02, however that is not entirely true.  They sent it to a third party, to have processed and sent to my bank.  I called my bank a few days later, and they confirmed they did not receive paperwork.  I called adjuster back, and he noted all paperwork is sent to a 3rd party and could take 2 weeks.  Bank received paperwork eventually, and loan was closed on 10/10.  I called 10/13 to get a status of my payment, and that is when Central informed me that they never sent me the proper paperwork, the Power of Attorney form.  Their statement that I didn't receive it, and had to resend it to me, is false as it was never sent in the first place.  See attached form, showing that it is dated 10/13.  Central also claims they are waiting for me to confirm that I received it, which is false.  I replied to the email on 10/13 @ 1:32pm (see attached email).  The form could not be returned electronically, as it needs to be mailed.  The paperwork was competed and returned on 10/14 via USPS.

  Once I called to complain, that is when they decided to release half the funds to me, via electronic deposit, which I am still waiting to receive.  Keep in mind, they were able to release these funds to me, before receiving any form they claimed they sent to me.  I understand that it can take 2-3 business days and will be calling back if not received in that timeframe.

  I will not be satisfied until the insurance company pays the total amount of money they owe me.  

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

  Business response

  10/17/2023

  Central Mutual does utilize a third party vendor to obtain lienholder payoffs. After declaring Mr. ******' vehicle a total loss on September 18, 2023, Mr. ****** sent Central his lienholder information on September 21, 2023, after Central requested same on September 20, 2023. Central's vendor requested payoff information from the lienholder that was provided to Central's vendor on September 26, 2023. Central then initiated payment directly to Mr. ******' lienholder on October 2, 2023, in amount of $11,251.76 per payoff instructions that were good through October 6, 2023.

  Mr. ****** is correct that the Power of Attorney form was overlooked and not sent to him by Central's salvage team. Central was unaware of this oversight until Mr. ****** called on October 13, 2023. Central confirmed Mr. ******' attached confirmation of receipt of POA. Central's practice is to remit funds once all needed documents are received. Due to Central not sending needed POA documents timely, Central made an accommodation and paid Mr. ****** 50% of the remaining amount due ($5,327.64) on October 13, 2023, due to its oversight in sending the POA documents. Central stands ready to issue the remaining $5,327.64 once the documents Mr. ****** noted as mailing on October 14, 2023, are received. Central apologizes for the oversight and delay relating to Mr. ******' total loss documents but moved as expeditiously as possible once alerted to the oversight on October 13, 2023. 

   

  Customer response

  10/18/2023

  
  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.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

• Initial Complaint

  07/10/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On May 20, 2023, My 5yo daughter and I was involved in an auto accident with a client of this company. As of July 10, 2023 I still can't get the adjuster or her supervisor to return phone calls to settle the claim. The unprofessional behavior of this company is beginning to feel retaliatory so I am seeking assistance to settle this matter and claim

  Business response

  07/14/2023

  Central Mutual's insured was in an accident with the Complainant on May 20, 2023. After receiving the police report on May 30, 2023, Central sent a letter to the Complainant on June 1 requesting an estimate for his auto damage. Central took his recorded statement on that day and settled his bodily injury claim. Central's auto adjuster communicated with Complainant on June 5 (attachment 1) about the appraisal and rental process. Central further communicated on the Complainant regarding his carseat replacement and explained what would be needed to process that (attachment 2). It should be noted that Central offered to replace the carseat despite Complainant never sending pictures of the cut straps as requested. 

  Central then received a valuation report for Complanant's vehicle on June 21 and emailed to him (attachment 3). There were then several emails exchanged between the Complainant and auto adjuster on the value (attachment 5). Complainant's position is that Central should pay him based on comparables emailed despite Central explaining why these comparables were not relevant (attachment 6). The vehicle was declared a total loss on this day. Central then gave Complainant seven days rental and extended it another two days due to Complainant's request. 

  In a legal liability situation, Central Mutual only owes for the actual cost value of property damaged by its insureds. It does not owe replacement cost. Central ran a report to find that amount and sent it to the Complainant who is unsatisfied with the offer. Complaint is free to pursue these damages under his own automobile policy if he is not satisfied with this value or provide evidence to Central that supports a higher actual cash value. That carrier can then subrogate against Central Mutual for those damages. However, Central has received nothing from Complainant to change Central's position on the value of Complainant's vehicle.

  Complainant alleges that Central will not return his calls, but all arguments have been exhausted while Complainant's voicemails are aggressive and unproductive. Central stands by its offer to settle which is reasonable based on market research as contained in valuation report referenced above. 

  Customer response

  07/14/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
    The author of the response that you received has obviously not listened to the recorded phone calls between the adjusters and myself.  When I explained what had happened and questioned their delay (almost 2 weeks) in contacting me, I was offered $500 as compensation "for my troubles" and was told that I needed to sign a release so that the check could be deposited into my PayPal account. I received a request for electronic signature and returned it the same day.  The author of this email response is now taking the position that I signed a liability release.  I dispute this and request that a legible copy be forwarded to my attorney as it is hard to read anything on a 4" phone screen and I have not yet been provided copies of anything by this company.  I wear glasses and bilateral hearing aides, and my screen reader is not always adequate to read online documents. I agree that my phone calls became aggressive after multiple attempts to reach and speak to either adjuster or a supervisor; I still can't get anyone to answer the phone or return my calls.  The entire communication process was horrible from the onset when the second adjuster would not return phone calls or messages for 10 days and later claimed that she was absent from the office attending a funeral.  I understand and respect her absence, what I don't like is that ANYBODY (either her supervisor or the other adjuster) could gave called me to explain the delay and processed my claim in her absence, instead of leaving us without transportation.  When the adjuster did respond she authorized a rental and told me that she would compensate me for the cost  of transportation to the rental agency (1 hour 28 minute drive).  I appreciate the rental for the duration it was provided but they never provided a settlement to replace my "totaled" vehicle.  They have since terminated the rental and still haven't provided a settlement.

  To address the comment regarding the car seat.  I was told by the initial adjuster to be sure to discuss it with the second adjuster.  When I did, she indicated that she needed a picture of the car seat to determine a valuation.  I took a picture of the manufacturers identification tag and forwarded it to her the same day and then subsequently placed the car seat at the curb for trash pickup.  It wasn't until 8 days later, and after many attempts to reach her by phone, that she claimed to now need a picture of the car seat showing the straps were cut or would not otherwise provide reimbursement. When I explained that this lack of communication is the very reason that I was trying to get her to return my calls, she stated that she was done arguing with me and that I needed to provide her adequate time to process the claim.

  She additionally stated that she  contracted with a third party vendor to come pickup my vehicle after it had been inspected by an appraiser.  The aforementioned vendor contacted me at @'3:30pm and stated that they were coming to get the vehicle within the hour.  I was asked if I still had the title.  I said yes and was asked if I was told to give him the title or mail it to the adjuster.  I responded that I was not provided instruction and would need to call the adjuster.   I then tried to call the adjuster multiple times before 4:30, she never answered or called back.  The vendor called me back and stated that they were not able to reach the adjuster either and would reschedule the pickup for the following morning.  I was told by the vendor to sign the title and leave the keys and title in the vehicle and if they would speak to the adjuster when they could reach her. The vehicle has now been removed, I don't have a rental vehicle to use and still haven't received a settlement to use to replace my vehicle.  I understand that processing  a claim takes time but the accident was on May 20 and we are 6 days short of two months.  I have tried to communicate with this company but now feel the delays are deliberate and retaliatory for involving her supervisor. In our last telephone conversation she also stated that she would not compensate me for the cost of returning by uber after returning the rental car.  There seems to be a gotcha or deliberate omission in every offer that thus company provides.
  

  This incident has been a major disruption into my single parent to a 5 yo life.  During all these delays in settlement I have had to use Uber and Veterans Service Commision to seek and attend medical appointments for the injuries that this crash has exacerbated in myself and newly created in the  my daughter.

  I detest litigation and have made every attempt to communicate and settle with this adjuster.  as you can see from theirvresponse that they are still making excuses for their lack of communication and professionalism.

  At this point I still don't have a vehicle, I still dont have a settlement and have retained an attorney so they can now communicate with the attorney since they won't communicate with me.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *** ********

• Initial Complaint

  12/02/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In November of last year, my house was inspected from the outside by a Central Insurance Auditor. I receieved a letter a few months later stating that my roof needed to be replaced even though the house was under the age of 20 and that my gutters were full. I went through the steps of looking for a roofer. When I told them the age of the house and that I wasn't having any issues with the roof but the insurance company was pushing for a new roof, they were in disagreement. One of them used a drone to look at the areas in question and found no significant issues. An area where there was an alleged problem turned out to be just dirt bouncing off of the shingles and hitting the side of the house. The gutters were fitted with guards when they were installed and caught two twigs in the filters at the high point. From the ground, the gutters appear full but from above, and based on the flow of the water from the downspouts, they aren't. Now Central is advising me that if I don't spend $20K to replace non-existent issues on the roof, my policy will not be renewed.

  Business response

  12/14/2022

  To Whom It May  Concern:

  This is in response to the complaint addressed to ****** ******* and forwarded me for review and response. We have reviewed our files and determined that an inspection of the insured's dwelling revealed clogged gutters and some curling/lifting shingles and granular loss on the roof.  In November of 2021, we sent a letter outlining our concerns and requesting proof that our concerns were addressed in order to continue on the policy.  Acceptable proof of addressed concerns could include photos of work completed, work orders for repairs completed, or statements from licensed professionals indicating what work was or was not needed on the home.  When we received no documentation that our concerns had been addressed, we sent legal non-renewal on the policy.  We did not require the insured to replace his roof.  The policy is set to non-renew 3/1/23. If we receive documentation confirming our concerns have been addressed (which could include photos of the cleaned gutters and written statements from licensed roofers regarding the condition of the roof) we would be able to rescind the non-renewal.

  Please Let me know if you need additional information!

  Thank You

  ******** 

  Personal Lines Manager

  Customer response

  12/14/2022

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  the response is just the original statement reworded to look like not being was being forced.  Non-renewal for non compliance is just another way to say, get a new roof or your policy won’t be renewed.  
  

  Fact: your “expert” never went on said roof and did their examination from ground level or used a drone and took some blurry photos of the house.  
  

  Fact: no roofer is going to put in writing that a house doesn’t need a new roof.  They are in the business to make money and will always push for work to be done.  No roofer wants to vouch for something they didn’t install.  
  

  Fact: Your recommendations are based on opinion and not fact.  You are utilizing information from a so called expert that supposedly knows roofs without actually getting on the roof or even using a ladder for close examination.  
  

  Fact because you are going by statements made by conjecture from somebody who didn’t look at the roof properly, you have no merit behind your claim that my policy cannot be renewed.  I pay my bills on time every month and have not done anything to warrant non-renewal.  Your claims that I have to provide proof of work to show the house needs work is surmount to extortion as you are telling me I have to pay to play when I am already paying.  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

• Initial Complaint

  11/01/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Central Insurance is covering a car repair business _ Shaw Auto, Cuyahoga Falls - I had my car repair done there. I took my car and dropped it off at Shaw Auto Care Inc. to have a suggested repair done to my vehicle, costing $500. I picked my car up and was driving home when the car caught on fire, police and the fire department was on the scene, and the fireman stated he could smell gas, two block were shut down due to this. My car was totaled. On-site I called Shaw Auto and spoke to *******, I believe the owner's son, that it was the part or mechanic, was given their insurance information. The repair was a valve cover gasket - if my fuel rails were not connected right and checked for leaking that would cause the fire. I had been driving the car daily and did not have smoke or fire previous to repair. All permissions and the location of the car were given on June 21, 2022, and I spoke with the agent on June 22nd, yet he was trying to close the claim and stated I was not in contact with them. I gave permission at that time for my car to be inspected. The claims adjuster tried to close the claim, gave me problems giving me the location of my car, and did not send information on where destructive testing was to be done, although it was requested. The agent knew my insurance was not involved yet he never sent any information to me. He did not meet time deadlines and was very rude. The inspector for the car answered before the claim adjuster. His supervisor did not reply to an email I sent her. The only thing the company looked at was the part, not the repair that caused the fire. I was not given the information on testing so I could have my inspector there. The offer made before destructive testing by central insurance was half of the book value. The offer itself should show that they held responsibility. This went on from June 20 - Sept. 18th for them to deny a claim, although I still have not received any letter regarding that. I now will not use that repair shop.

  Business response

  11/02/2022

  All America Insurance Company provides a Commercial Liability policy to Shaw Auto Care Inc via policy **********, effective 02/13/2022 through 02/13/2023.  The underlying claim to this complaint was reported by our agent on 06/22/2022 at 2:41 PM and was assigned for handling the same day.      
  
  Contact was made with ******* ***********, an employee of Shaw Auto Car Inc., on 06/23/2022 and a recorded statement was secured.  Per Mr. ***********, the customer, ***** *****, brought the vehicle in for an oil smell and leak.  The vehicle was inspected and it was noted that the valve cover seals were leaking across the motor which required a valve cover replacement.  This work was completed, the engine was allowed to run 10-15 minutes, no issues were noted and the vehicle was released back to the owner.  The work order dated 06/22/2022 confirms the valve cover gasket replacement, oil cap replacement, and an oil change as the work performed.  The invoice noted oil leaks and recommended that an engine clean and dye service be performed to determine the source of oil leak. 
  
  All America spoke with ***** ***** on 06/23/2022. At that time, he advised he set up a claim with Geico who was preparing payment on the claim.  Mr. ***** not provide a statement to All America’s claim adjuster since he had already provided one to Geico.  All America then called Geico who refused to provide any details on the loss.  All America then called Mr. ***** back, and he stated the vehicle caught fire 15 minutes after picking it up from Shaw Auto Care.

  On 06/23/2022, All America assigned EFI Global, a fire origin and cause expert, to inspect Mr. *****’s vehicle.  Our expert contacted Geico to confirm if it wished to send an expert to take part in inspecting the vehicle. Geico confirmed that it was not sending its own expert. All America’s expert inspected the vehicle on 06/24/2022. During the initial inspection, the origin and cause expert noted it appeared that the fire started in the rear engine compartment.  He was not able to see the undercarriage but noted the fire could have started due to the excess oil build up on the undercarriage.  It was recommended the vehicle be moved to a location with a lift so the undercarriage could be inspected. 
  
  All America contacted Mr. ***** on 06/30/2022 and left a message noting that further inspections were needed and asked for a return call to discuss. We also sent a letter this date advising that All America would not consider storage at the tow yard beyond 07/07/2022.  All America did not receive a response from Mr. ***** and left another message on 07/05/2022 requesting a return call.  We received notice from EFI Global that the owner had approved moving the vehicle via email. All America then replied to Mr. ***** via email and asked him to remove personal property prior to All America moving the vehicle.  A request was sent to IAA (Insurance Auto Auctions) to pick up the vehicle from Johnny’s Auto Towing.  On 07/12/2022, All America received notice that the vehicle wasn’t released by the owner so a follow up letter and email was sent to Mr. ***** advising All America would consider closing the claim in 10 days if there was no response.  There was also a voicemail left for him the same day. 
  
  Mr. ***** responded on 07/18/2022 claiming he did not receive any notice of contact other than our letter dated 07/12/2022.  He then instructed us to communicate with his mother, **** *****, from this point forward.  We were able to confirm after this that the vehicle had been released and was picked up on 07/14/2022.  A second inspection was set for 07/22/2022.  Upon completion of the second inspection, it was determined that a possible ignition source was the turbo charger at the rear of the engine.  It was also noted there was old oil and debris built up on the engine compartment.  A sample of the oil was collected to check for metal chips; results from the oil sample indicated water in the oil which was likely attributed when the fire was extinguished. 
  
  Liability was not clear after the second inspection and since there were unanswered questions regarding the excess oil build-up and other oil leaks noted on the Shaw Auto Care invoice, All America offered the following to **** *****: 1.) Put the manufacturer and Geico on notice of additional destructive testing, or 2.) Proceed with a compromise settlement of 50% since liability was questionable.  Ms. ***** replied via email to proceed with destructive testing.
  
  Notices regarding destructive testing and a joint exam scheduled for 09/15/2022 were sent to Geico, Mr. *****’s personal automobile insurer, Hyundai, the vehicle manufacturer, and Royal Family Motors, another repair facility that had done prior engine work on the vehicle in question.  All notices were sent regular and certified mail on 08/16/2022.  Certified mail receipts were received from all three parties listed above. 
  
  EFI Global was not contacted by any of the parties and the exam proceeded as scheduled.  Results from the exam determined the cause of the vehicle fire was an unspecified oil leak causing oil to splatter along the undercarriage of the vehicle which became ignited by the catalytic converter.  The exam also noted there was no fresh oil observed around the valve cover, oil filter, or oil pan.  There valve cover gasket was intact with no damage, and the undercarriage had a severe oil buildup from the bulkhead to the trunk.  It was also noted that 5 quarts of oil were drained from the oil pan and the proper oil capacity is 5.1 quarts.  The exam did not find liability or negligence on behalf of Shaw Auto Care Inc.
  
  All America denied liability to ***** ***** on 09/28/2022 as there was no evidence that work performed by Shaw Auto Care Inc was the cause of the fire. Mr. *****, as the claimant, carries the burden of proof to prove liability and has done nothing to meet that burden. Three separate inspections were completed on Mr. *****’s vehicle, all done with his permission and without his participation. Despite being put on notice of each inspection and given the chance to attend, Mr. ***** did not do so. To now dispute the cause of the fire appears untimely. All America notified Ms. ***** the same day via email of the liability denial and advised that the vehicle was ready to be released to him or Geico.

   

  Customer response

  11/04/2022

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The statements are untrue. Central Insurance was aware, as they stated in their response, that Geico was not involved in the claim, **** was going through their insurance as Shaw Automotive was responsible. **** never received the notice of destructive testing and had to argue with the claims adjuster to find the location of the fire testing as well. When he found the location of the testing was the same day it was being tested. I have attached the invoice from Shaw automotive as well as the request to be advised of when and where the destructive testing was going to take place. The adjuster did not supply that information as you will note from the attached. I also attached proof that the insurance company was given permission to get the car on June 28, 2022, being the third time it was given. I gave it on June 23, 2022 in the conversation with *****, I gave the permission again in a conversation and finally on June 28th gave it and documented it the permission. You will see from the work order what work was completed. If this work order was completed properly the oil would of had to have been removed to do the repair. The fire department noted that they smelled gas, the fire department did not hear of the proper replacement and referred to the repair as head gasket and not a valve cover gasket - the car was on fire and their attention was on that - Central is using a miscommunication as them not being responsible.   The repair order (attached) shows the repair done: this repair would require the fuel lines to be disconnected and reconnected to do the valve cover gasket, and the fire department stated they smelled gas, the fire also was not black, which would be an oil fire. If they didn't reconnect the fuel rail right and didn't check that they were connected properly (per their rebuttal it was not mentioned) that would of caused the fire. They are referring to a fuel pump that had nothing to do with the problem. Please notice that they did not send ***** the information on the testing even though they knew that he was going through them - not Geico, to which they sent the information to them knowing they were not involved. The Central Insurance company has repeatedly changed the problem to be ****s fault for not using his insurance (which was not who should of been used) **** not replying (I have multiple replies should you want to see), and an email was sent to *********, *****'s supervisor, to discuss the issue as ***** was extremely rude and condescending and she would not reply. The car had been driven every day before the repair causing the fire and never smoked once, within 15 minutes of picking the car up from Shaw Automotive the car was totaled. **** spoke to **** on the phone from the scene of fire a recorded statement was not mentioned until now from anyone, we have mentioned the conversation with **** from the beginning. We have repeatedly explained the conversation from the start of this and until now it was never addressed, the recorded statement didn't exist till now. The fact that it was picked up from the repair and immediately caught fire would be a one in a million chance that it did not happen from caked up oil on the same day of the repair (the oil would have to be cleaned off to do the repair properly). I see no place to do attachments, I do have the information and am able to forward it to you.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *****

  Customer response

  11/08/2022

  I have a group of different texts showing communication and requests for information. I feel this shows that things were not followed on a timeline, they were held up by *****. He knew the insurance company was not involved and never let us know when destructive testing where destructive testing would be done or where the fire investigation was - I found out on the day of testing - after having to argue to find location of the car I heard from the investigator before *****. Any other questions or verification needed please let me know.

  Business response

  11/08/2022

  Hello! This complaint is also received via OH DOI. Please see our responses in the attachments. Thanks! 

  Customer response

  11/10/2022

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Reviewing the replies by Central Insurance, the emails show that the letter that was sent was dated July 12th and not sent on 6/30 as stated, and the email on July 12 is stating it will close the claim. Both were done on the same day - I do not see anything in this instance where there was any proof of a certified letter. There were not several voicemails received from ***** or ***** as stated in the July 19th email. In the email dated July 4th and July 8th it shows that they were aware the vehicle was released Also, in the supplied documentation provided by Central Insurance, they had been notified by EFI that the vehicle had been released. On June 24th, two days after the incident Central sent a letter to Geico showing they were already aware they had permission to inspect car and had testing scheduled and if they did not hear from they did not respond by 6/28 they will presume a joint inspection was not of interest, again aware that Geico was not involve - **** did not receive notice. Yet the testing took till the middle of July. In the July 22nd email ***** states “ I would also like to note that all these delays on this claim are of your own doing”, yet the previously dated emails show that **** released the vehicle at the latest July 4th per correspondence supplied in their answer. Also in their documentation it shows **** giving permission more than once. **** did request to know where the first testing was done and the information was originally refused and not given till date of testing, by the fire inspector, not Central Insurance. The inspection states it was a possible ignition source was the turbocharger located at the rear of the engine. The excess build oil build-up again should have been removed to service the car replacing the valve seals which were leaking which is why the repair was done, this is where the oil build-up would have originated, the repair of the valve cover gaskets would have required the oil be removed. For the oil to have leaked enough to cause a fire would have required the vehicle to be leaking a great deal, which the mechanic noted it ran for 10-15 minutes and there were no problems seen.   Central Insurance was well aware that Geico was not handling the claim yet did not, as requested in the email dated July 27th by **** to know where and when destructive testing would be handled. Please review the July 27th emails to get a better picture of the refusal of the information and the attitude given. Twice the testing time and place was requested. **** never received notice and was not given the opportunity to have anyone present, again Central was aware Geico was not involved and the information should have been addressed to ****. The request was met with a refusal stating you will be contacted once I have results. **** had the right to have someone at the testing but was not given that opportunity because the information was withheld. I have pictures and video of the car fire being put out and Central Insurance stated the fire department said the wrong part yet they also stated they smelled gas - it was not an oil fire - I previously noted that the repairs would have involved gas lines and they were removed to do the repair. Should you need any further documentation please let me know. I feel their own replies provide documentation of the issues.
  Thank you,
  **** and **** *****
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *****

  Business response

  11/17/2022

  Mr. ***** is not an insured of Central Mutual Insurance Company but rather a third party claimant who is making a liability claim against Central’s insured, Shaw Auto Care Inc. This is an adversarial setting in which Mr. ***** alleges that Shaw Auto’s work caused a fire to his vehicle. Mr. ***** bears the legal burden of proof in demonstrating the origin of the fire in the vehicle as well as the cause of the fire. Shaw Auto is only legally liable for these damages if the cause of the fire can be attributed to its work.
  
  The assigned claim adjuster spoke with Mr. ***** on June 23, 2022, to obtain his carrier information which was provided as Geico. Central then spoke with Geico on the same day who refused to provide any information to the adjuster. Due to this, Central called Mr. ***** again to let him know about Geico’s response. Mr. ***** advised that “Melanie” had also given him the “run-around” as Central attempted to coordinate inspection of the vehicle. Mr. *****’s mother threatened to get an attorney at that time, and Central advised to have a letter of representation sent if that was the decision made.
  
  Central attempted to get Mr. *****’s permission to move the vehicle so that further fees were not incurred as well as to a location where a joint inspection could be held. A voicemail was left on June 30, 2022. No response was received so a letter was mailed on June 30, 2022, advising that Central would not consider storage fees accrued after July 7, 2022. Mr. ***** email back on July 4, 2022, to give permission to move the vehicle as well as permission to conduct destructive testing if necessary. On July 8, 2022, an email was sent to Mr. ***** to remove his personal items from the vehicle so it could be moved.
  
  Central heard back from Mr. ***** on July 18, 2022, at which time he reiterated permission to move the vehicle after the shop advised it did not have that permission from Mr. *****. Central then sent an email to the fire investigator on July 19, 2022, asking for the vehicle inspection to be set. Mr. ***** was cc’d on that email. The fire investigator responded by email to all to advise that the inspection was being set for July 22, 2022. Mr. ***** did not attend this inspection.
  
  Central received preliminary results back from non-destructive testing that showed the only abnormality about the oil itself was the water levels, likely from the fire being put out. Central then emailed this information to Mr. ***** on August 4, 2022, and advised of two options: 1) do testing with Mr. *****, his carrier, manufacturer, and Central’s fire expert, or 2) accept 50% of damages up to the value of the vehicle. Mr. ***** replied via email that he thought the value was higher and wanted to do inspection. A voicemail was left for Mr. ***** on August 5, 2022, requesting a return call on his claim.
  
  The claims adjuster then proceeded to put Geico (Mr. *****’s carrier), the manufacturer, and Mr. ***** on notice of the joint inspection set for September 15, 2022. On September 15, 2022, Central’s fire investigator confirmed he did not hear from any of the parties and proceeded with the inspection.
  
  Central’s received its investigator’s report (attached) on September 28, 2022, which found the cause of the fire to be an oil leak causing oil to splatter along the undercarriage and be ignited by the catalytic converter. Central sent a liability denial to Mr. ***** on the same day. It advised that he could retrieve his vehicle. At that time and possibly still, Mr. ***** could and can hire an expert to inspect his vehicle to obtain the expert opinion needed to meet his legal burden of proof.

• Initial Complaint

  10/28/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Sunday, September 4, 2022, a rotten tree fell on my garage. This complaint is in regards to Central-Insurance Claim #**********that is not being handled correctly. ****** ****, the insured, contacted her agent, ****** *******, after receiving a certified letter from me in regard to my claim. ****** *******, the agent of record blatantly denied my claim; she made a coverage decision that was not within their scope of practice. She said to contact my insurance company since the fallen rotten tree was an Act of God. After sending her an email, she filed my claim. Once claims became involved there have been repeated errors and improper handling. I have made repeated attempts to resolve this issue with the adjuster **** *******. Mr. ******* has repeatedly denied to provide his supervisor’s information. Mr. ******* has unjustly taken betterment on a part that is no longer available, he also took betterment on labor, which either way the company owes for the labor to replace the damaged part. The insurance company should restore my property to pre-loss condition and replace the affected siding. However, the siding is no longer available, I prefer the look of the aluminum siding. Quite frankly I am distraught that the siding cannot be found to properly restore my garage to pre-loss condition. The garage located at the property address had functional siding that protected the structure from moisture, was cosmetically pleasing to me, and had a finish on it that was baked on at the factory which cannot be replicated on site. Their insured through their own negligence caused damage to the garage. If the insured had properly maintained her property the garage would have never been damaged. I am a retired police officer on a fixed income with a disabled wife. Mr. ******* is not properly indemnifying me in the loss that occurred due to his insured’s negligence. I should not be financially responsible for their insured’s gross negligence that caused damage to my g

  Business response

  10/31/2022

  This casualty claim arose when a tree fell from the property of Ms. ****** ****, a Central policyholder, onto the property of Mr. ****** on September 4, 2022. Ms. ****’s property abutted Mr. ******’ property. Central received notice of this potential liability claim on September 12, 2022, and began contacting parties to investigate the claim. Central also sent a field adjuster to the claim location on September 29, 2022, to assess damages. On October 5, Central informed Mr. ****** that it was accepting liability on behalf of its insured.

  Central began working up an initial estimate of damages on October 7, 2022, that included depreciation since that is what is owed in a third party liability situation. Central then received notice from Mr. ****** on October 12 advising that there was damage to the siding found. The initial estimate was for $13,347.16 with depreciation in amount of $7,646.42 for total of $5,700.74. After discussing items that should have been included and also discussing depreciation, Central sent updated estimate in amount of $8,448.12 on October 28.  In order to get the claim settled, Central then agreed to settle with Mr. ****** for $9,473.64 while reducing depreciation. The claim is now settled.
  
  To further clarify, Central’s position regarding third party property damage is the the actual cash value is owed, not replacement cost. Central worked to negotiate the claim with actual cash value in mind and worked that into its estimates and conversations with Mr. ******. A review of the file shows one email received on October 20, 2022, where Mr. ****** requested a supervisor’s name. There was simply no response to that request, and it appears it was overlooked. In any event, at that time, the disagreement pertained to the amount of damages owed to Mr. ******, a third party. Central stands by its assessment that it only owes the actual cash value of damages in a third party liability setting.
  
  

  Customer response

  10/31/2022

  
  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.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

• Initial Complaint

  08/22/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Filed a homeowners insurance claim in Dec 20. Central insurance refuses to pay & release payment for the claim that was evaluated by their company. They owe $6,012 from a $12,012 claim.

  Business response

  08/29/2022

  We are in receipt of the complaint submitted by ******* ******.  After reviewing the file we found that we are still in need of the repair invoices and completion photos from the contractor for the work that has been completed to date.  I was able to discuss this with Ms. ****** and she is aware of the supporting documentation that is required in order to receive the additional funds on her claim.  Upon receipt of the documentation we will promptly review and reconcile any additional funds that are due, and issue any additional warranted payments to Ms. ****** accordingly.  

• Initial Complaint

  08/18/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  We bought the insurance on 07/01/2022 and bundled our home and auto. Central did want to do a roof inspection before the homeowner's policy was in-place. A gentleman named ****** was out on 08/02/2022 and 08/03/2022 to take photographs of the roof. A few days later we were notified that Central Insurance was canceling the coverage because they felt the roof hadn't been replaced in 15- 20 years. They also complained about leaf debris and overhanging tree branches (which have since been cleaned up). The age of the roof they were claiming was surprising to us both as we bought the house in November 2021 and the seller informed us the roof was replaced in 2018 and has a 5 year (transferrable) warranty. We reached out to the seller and were able to track down the invoices and license number of the contractor who replaced the roof in 2018. We forwarded this information to Central Insurance but again, they were not satisfied and unwilling to provide us coverage. A few days ago we received a check in the mail for $1,074.53 which was our refunded premium on the homeowner's policy ($1,261.19 was drawn from escrow on 07/19/2022 - unbeknownst to us). I don't see how they are entitled to $186.66 of premiums. I don't see how they are entitled to anything. I have also submitted a complaint to the ****** ** *** ************** ** ********* ** ***

  Business response

  08/31/2022

  Per Mr. *****’s letter I have reviewed his concerns and found that after discussions with the agency and Mr. *****, Central Insurance will be able to continue on his Homeowners policy. Mr. ***** has removed debris from his roof and has agreed to cut back any trees overhanging the roof. Mr. *****’s Homeowners policy has been reinstated with no lapse in coverage and he can destroy the refund check we sent him. This resolution has been discussed with Mr. ***** and the agency and all of the concerns mentioned in the letter have been resolved. Please let me know if any additional information is needed.

  
  Regards,
  **** ******
  Central Insurance- Underwriting Manager 
  **** ** ***** **** ***** ***
  ******* ***** *****

  Customer response

  09/01/2022

   
  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.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********** *****

*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. ↩