Business ProfileforCalifornia Casualty

Dear BBB,

I am in receipt of the complaint filed by ****************. Thank you for bringing this matter to our
attention. California Casualty treats any complaint very seriously. By introduction I am claims team
manager with California Casualty. I have thoroughly reviewed the claim and contacting **************** to
discuss her concerns directly.

This loss occurred on 3/9/2024 when our insured made contact with Ms. ******* unoccupied vehicle
in a low-speed parking lot collision. The impact to Ms. ******* ********************************
$1,532.82 of cosmetic damage only to the rear bumper and decklid. **************** indicated to her
adjuster that she wanted to pursue a claim for diminished value. **************** claims that California
Casualty has been avoided her attempts to pursue a diminished value claim. However, California
Casualtys adjuster was aware of Ms. ******* request and had our material damage department review
her claim for diminished value. **************** was sent a denial letter regarding her diminished value
claim on 5/31/2024.

Our material damage department has reviewed Ms. ******* damage and request for diminished value.
The estimate and photos to Ms. ******* vehicle reflect very minor cosmetic damage, there was no
structural damage to the vehicle. Based on this information our conclusion is that no diminished value
claim is warranted for this minor of damage. Contrary to what **************** claims this collision is not
listed on any Carfax report.Geicos statement indicates they were the lead vehicle and that ****** forced themselves to Geicos right and
CalCas left side contacted Geicos right side. Geico had their wheels turned right and CalCas didnt stop and
struck Geico by attempting to squeeze by ***** who was stopped at the time of impact.

CalCas statement indicates Geico had not directionals flashing and CalCas assumed Geico would turn left and
CalCas pulled up on Geicos right side and stopped and Geico sideswiped CalCas left front.
CalCas made the assumption that Geico was turning left even through CalCas states Geico had no directional
activated. CalCas is found to be the sole cause of the loss for improper passing
Based on the final arbitration decision ***** was awarded and California Casualty had to pay the other parties
claim. Once payment is made, the at fault coding is changed and the accident reflects an at fault accident on the
complainants record. In speaking with the complainant regarding his concerns he feels that California Casualty
not obtaining video footage he had contributed to us not prevailing in arbitration. The complainant provided me
the video and I reviewed it. The video is only a video of the intersection, not the loss itself. The video does show
that while two cars can fit at the intersection it is only a one lane road. When we presented our evidence in
arbitration, we provided ****** map photos of the intersection which provided the same evidence that was in
the video. That being said, what was in the video would not have supported our case any more than the photos
and would not have changed the outcome of the arbitration decision.

The loss occurred on 12/9/2023. The complainant reported the loss to us on 12/15/2023 indicating that *****
had placed him at fault, and he didnt agree. He also indicated that he was going to be out of the country for
several months and would only be available via email. Our adjuster emailed the complainant on 12/18/2023. In
speaking with the complainant, I apologized if he experienced any communication problems with his adjuster.
The complainant did not carry first party collision coverage, so California Casualty was unable to assist the
complainant with his vehicle repairs.

California Casualty cannot force Geico to accept liability. California Casualty supported the complainants version
of the loss, and we denied liability to Geico. We presented our case to support our liability decision in arbitration
but unfortunately, we did not prevail. Although I understand the complainants frustration feeling that he is not
at fault, the arbitration decision is binding and cannot be disputed or reversed. This results in the complainant
being placed at fault for the collision. On 8/7/24 I contacted the complainant directly to return his voicemail
regarding his concerns. Although the complainant was not satisfied with the end result, I feel that I had
thoroughly explained our position and why.