Best Affirms Ratings for American Modern; Assigns Issuer Credit Ratings
Midwest News • May 5, 2005
A.M. Best Co. has affirmed the financial strength rating of A+ (Superior) of Ohio-based American Modern Insurance Group (American Modern) and its property/casualty affiliates. A.M. Best has also ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Complaint of AMI/Associates
Posted On: November 21, 2005, 8:59 pm CST
Posted By: Insurance professional
Comment:
In response to the complaint made above, I feel the need to bring to the insured's attention that the lienholder issue is not something that the insurance company can control because that is the duty of the mortgagee to notify the insurance company when they A. SELL THE LOAN/REFI. B. CHANGE ADDRESS, C. CHANGE NAMES D. PAYOFF THE LOAN. It is not in the control of the insurance company to take action regarding the bank information unless they are notified by the customer or the lender to do so. Changes cannot be made on your policy unless it is requested by either one of you. Furthermore, the policy that is sent to you also lists the bank that was communicated last to the insurance company. That is something you should look over when you receive your renewal. This sounds like another communication problem. The purpose of the bank to be listed in the first place is so that they may be paid in the event of a claim. If the insurance company is not updated with the correct information, then there will be an issue with the check. You probably should address this to your lender.
It is also my understanding that the repairs were not made on those homes in that area during those dates because there was speculation that Wilma may affect that area also, thus damaging the homes further. They were probably waiting this out because if the home was to be repaired and three days later attacked again, you would have needed to start the claim process over again, and begin the cycle all over. The fact that you had already had a claim in, all you would have needed to do was add further damage to the existing claim, saving you and your adjuster time. In the end, this would save you money in future premiums because the cost of filing two claims as opposed to adding to another is greater.
I understand your frustration but, in all honesty, the company thinks of your best interest first before their own well being. I have witnessed it myself. The process of a claim is never as smooth as people would hope it to be because there are so many parties involved.
Thank you.
Subject: RE: Complaint of AMI/Associates
It is also my understanding that the repairs were not made on those homes in that area during those dates because there was speculation that Wilma may affect that area also, thus damaging the homes further. They were probably waiting this out because if the home was to be repaired and three days later attacked again, you would have needed to start the claim process over again, and begin the cycle all over. The fact that you had already had a claim in, all you would have needed to do was add further damage to the existing claim, saving you and your adjuster time. In the end, this would save you money in future premiums because the cost of filing two claims as opposed to adding to another is greater.
I understand your frustration but, in all honesty, the company thinks of your best interest first before their own well being. I have witnessed it myself. The process of a claim is never as smooth as people would hope it to be because there are so many parties involved.
Thank you.