ComplaintsforFirst Chicago Insurance Co.

• Initial Complaint

  03/25/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On Oct 22, 2021 I was in a car accident where I was 0% at fault. The vehicle that hit me was insured by First Chicago Insurance. It has been five months since my accident and First Chicago still has not accepted nor denied fault. My case has been at a standstill and I have been without a car since then. They are impossible to get a hold of for me, my insurance, and my lawyer. They owe me money for property damages but will not answer calls to get this moving. Complete crooks. Purchase price of my vehicle was about $20,000

  Business response

  03/31/2022

  March 31, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
                  Consumer:          ***************************
                  Claim Number: INV84399
  
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The loss was reported on 10/26/21 by our insured who advised they could not recall what occurred in the loss, nor could they provide any information on the Complainant. The crash report was received on 11/11/21 but did not contain an address or phone number to reach the Complainant.
  
  *********** received contact from the Complainant on 12/14/21.They advised they had left the Complainant vehicle at the tow facility, Auto Return, since the date of loss and the Complainant was under the impression the vehicle was still at Auto Return. *********** scheduled a preliminary inspection with an independent appraiser and requested a rush on the inspection.
  
  The independent appraiser went to inspect the vehicle on 12/14/21 and was advised by Auto Return that the vehicle was sold in auction 12/3/21,prior to the Company receiving complainant contact information. Auto return would not release information on who the vehicle was sold too.
  
  *********** advised the Complainant of the sale of the vehicle and advised that to substantiate their 3rd party property damage claim we would need supporting evidence of the damages.  *********** requested the Complainant send in any scene photos that *** reflect the damage and she advised she did not have any.
  
  *********** contacted Auto Return and they would not release damage photos to the Company, but they would release them to the Complainant. The Complainant called Auto Return to request the photos and they then advised they would not release photos without a court order. The Complainant contacted the police who quoted her a 7-business day timeframe for a response. *********** never received any supporting evidence from the Complainant to support their 3rd party property damage claim.
  
  *********** received a letter of representation from Complainant legal counsel and the letter advised the Company to deal with the Complainant directly for their property damage claim.
  
  *********** had no additional conversations with the Complainant,nor had we received the requested supporting evidence as of 3/28/21.
  
  *********** called the Complainant on 3/28/21. The Complainant was advised again that due to her failure to properly mitigate her damages and protect/preserve her vehicle the tow lot disposed of the vehicle. This left the Company unable to inspect/assess the property damages. Without additional supporting evidence to substantiate her 3rd party property damage claim the Company would be unable to consider settlement at this time. *********** advised that in the event she is able to present evidence to substantiate the claim we can review and consider.
  
  Based on the aforementioned  and the Complainants failure to mitigate her damages, the Company feels it has handled the claim accordingly.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ***************************
  Property Damage Director
  Phone: ************
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/28/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  There were to call us back after receiving information from us. They never did. When I call them I am unable to connect and it hangs up. I want them to reach out to us immediately.

  Business response

  03/07/2022

  
  March 7, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  Re:       Complaint ID#:  ********
              ************************************
              Claim Number:MOV88386
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The claim was reported to the Company on 2/8/22 and the Complainants vehicle was scheduled for inspection with an independent field appraiser.
  
  The Complainant spoke with multiple Company representatives on 2/10/22 and was advised the Claim remained open pending receipt of the preliminary estimate and a copy of the crash report.
  
  The Complainant vehicle estimate was received on 2/15/22 and the vehicle was deemed a total loss. The claim remained open pending receipt of a copy of the crash report. The Complainant again spoke with multiple Company representatives 2/15/22 & 2/16/22 and was advised on status.  
  
  The Company was able to receive/review the crash report on 2/24/22 and confirm coverage. The Company spoke with the Complainant and advised them the file would be transferred to the total loss department to finalize a settlement offer. The Company called the Complainant on 3/3/22 and we were unable to leave a voice message.
  
  The Company spoke with the Complainant on 3/4/22 and extended total loss settlement offers. The Complainant accepted the owner retained offer equating to $1,988.00. Upon receipt of a Copy of the title for the Complainant vehicle the Company will issue settlement.
  
  Based on the aforementioned the Company feels it has handled the claim accordingly.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ***************************
  Property Damage Director
  Phone: ************
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/25/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My policy (ILV 666879-00) went into effect 1/31/2021. Unfortunately, I was in an accident on 2/2/2021 while driving to visit my mother in IA. First Chicago has proven extremely difficult to work with. It was and has been close to impossible to get a live person on the phone. A year later, it still has not improved, customer service is horrible. While I did have an accident a short time after my policy started, my payment was accepted, and I was covered. However, First Chicago has denied to pay for the other vehicle that was in the accident. My insurance was current and again, payment was accepted for my policy. Please pay the claim. Thanks.

  Business response

  03/03/2022

  
  March 3, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: ***********************
                  Claim Number: ILV73655
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The loss was reported on 02/03/2021 concerning an accident that occurred on 02/02/2021. The Insured reported that they were attempting to make a right turn into a parking lot and struck a parked vehicle. It should be noted the Insured disclosed to the adjuster he needed his vehicle repaired timely as he uses the vehicle for *** business use.
  
  *********** attempted to reach the Insured concerning the *** usage and undisclosed losses on multiple occasions. *********** did receive a response from the insured on 2/25/21, however, still needing proof of the *** usage by the ************** *********** also sent a contact letter and a Reservation of Rights letter to the Insured concerning their Policy Conditions of cooperating with the Company concerning the loss.
  
  *********** denied the loss for the Insured failing to adhere to their Policy Conditions of cooperating in the event of an accident. *********** mailed out denial letters to both the Insured and the Complainant. 
  
  At this time, the company has reopened the claim and a message has been left for the complainant to contact the company on 3/1/2022.   
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/14/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I was a sleep and when i woke up i seen my car got hit sometime in the night. Called my insurance company and was told to wait for the adjuster to come out and go from there them a week after the guy came to take pics i recived a call and was told they would not cover my car and i had full coverage

  Business response

  02/23/2022

  
  
  February 23, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *************************
                  Claim Number: INA81702
  
  Dear Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, Inc.
  
  The Complainant contacted the Company on 08/19/2021 to report a loss that occurred on 08/18/2021.
  
  The Complainant advised that his vehicle was parked and unoccupied and was struck by a hit and run driver. It should be advised that no police report was filed for this accident.
  
  The Company contacted the Complainant to address the facts of loss. During his facts of loss statement to the Company,the Complainant advised that he did not file a police report because he did not see any reason to.
  
  The Complainant was contacted by the Company on 09/01/2021 and was advised that pursuant to his Policy Conditions a police report must be filed within 24hrs of the hit and run loss. The Complainant advised that he would obtain an Attorney to handle his claim.
  
  The Company received a letter of representation from the Law Firm of ************************************* on 02/01/2022, advising they are representing the Complainant for his vehicle damage. The Company e-mailed a denial letter on 02/09/2022 to the Attorney representing the Complainant advising of his clients Policy Conditions.
  
  At this time the file remains closed and the Company considers this complaint resolved.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

  Customer response

  03/04/2022

   
  Complaint: 16765222
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

   

   

  No there has been no response from them and has not tried to fix the problem at all 

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

  Business response

  03/07/2022

  
  March 7, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *************************
  Claim Number: INA81702
  
  Please allow this to serve as our follow up response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant has presented no additional information to date, nor have we received additional contact from the Complainant since our last response. The Company placed a call to the Complainant on 3/7/22 to again advise that his claim has been denied.  
  
  Based on the aforementioned the Company again feels it has handled the claim accordingly, the file remains closed and the Company considers this complaint resolved.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ***************************
  Property Damage Director
  Phone: ************
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/10/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I want to know if the insurance is paying for my vehicle damage

  Business response

  02/16/2022

  
  February 16, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: ***********************
                  Claim Number: IAV82736
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant called the Company on 09/15/2021, concerning a loss that occurred on 09/04/2021. When the Complainant addressed his contact information at the onset of the claim, the phone number was incorrect.
  
  *********** attempted multiple attempts to reach the Complainant at the incorrect number and no contact was made.  *********** mailed a contact letter to the Complainant and did not get a response.
  
  It was upon receiving this Complaint that the Company was advised of the proper contact number.  *********** was able to contact the Complainant and address all the loss facts, including making an assignment out to an ***************************** to inspect the Complainants vehicle.  The Complainant was contacted and was advised of the claim process.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/07/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My car was hit by someone (their fault) insured by First Chicago Insurance company on 1/17/2022. Among the damages to our car, the accident pinned our driver door closed and is forcing us enter/exit by climbing over the passenger seat for the past 3 `1/2 weeks - with two young kids in the car. Since driving to their facility 4 days after the accident to get pictures taken, the company has not provided any support to get our car fixed - no estimate, no response to numerous calls over the past week. The couple of times I have spoken to someone they continue to say it is in "process." First Chicago Insurance insured the individual who hit me and I expect them to resolve the issue with speed and respect. Thank you Claim #******

  Business response

  02/16/2022

  
  February 16, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: ***********************
                  Claim Number: 141211
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The loss was reported by the Complainant on 01/19/2022 concerning an accident that occurred on 01/17/2022.
  
  On 01/19/2022, the Company made an assignment to inspect the Complainants vehicle. The Company attempted to contact the Insured on 02/01/2022 and had to leave a message to contact the Company. The Complainants estimate was also received by the Company. On this same date, the Company received a letter of Representation from the Insureds Attorney who was representing the Insured for his damages and also for his Injury.
  
  The Company contacted the Attorney for the Insured on 02/02/2022 and was advised that the Complainants carrier (Geico) had accepted the liability for the loss. The Attorney was advised to mail the Companys acceptance of liability letter.
  
  On 02/07/2022, the Company received a letter from Geico advising that they had accepted liability for the loss. The Company, based on the acceptance letter from the Complainants own carrier, feels at this time that no payment is due to the Complainant.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone: ************
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/07/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I filed claim # **iLV86762 on December 23, 20** with this company. I attempted to follow up on my claim using the status claim check line, and no one would ever answer, and I was hung up on after waiting on the claim status line for several minutes once. Someone had picked up the line and hung up. I would leave voicemails after voicemails to get the status of my claim, and no one ever called me back. I had to go through the website and fill out a contact form to receive a call back. They called the main policy holders number to reach me claiming that they did not have my phone number even after I left messages with my phone number and claim number for reference. When the person called me after filling out the contact form asking for an supervisor to call me back, I was finally able to let someone know that my car was in a tow yard incurring charges of $150.00 per day. My car had been in the tow yard for ********************************* I had even called the *********** number on the website, and the woman said that the reason no one answered or got back to me was because they maybe had two people in the office. Someone finally reached out, and The woman took the info of where my car was located, and said that the adjuster was going to call the tow yard to work out payment to release my vehicle. Someone from their office named ******* began texting me. She informed me that the storage fees came out to be over $7,000 which I was told by ******* was excessive and that they wouldnt pay that much. I was told that if the charges had been $700-1500, my insurance would cover an amount in that range. She made me call the tow yard several times and speak to the owner to try and get him to lower the charges. She told me to pretend that I did not have insurance coverage so that I could pay the owner. Now Im told that I have to pay $1500 in excessive fees to get my car out of another tow yard. I was also told that I owe money for having a co-owner, but my car is paid off.

  Business response

  02/16/2022

  
  February 16, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *************************
                  Claim Number: 86762
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant was involved in a loss on 12/22/21 at 6:45pm, after business hours. The Claim was submitted to the Companys after-hours service.
  
  On 12/23/21 the Company called the Complainant to attempt to obtain the vehicle location and get the vehicle moved to a storage free facility, but our call was unsuccessful, and we were unable to leave a voice message. The Company was unable to speak with the Complainant prior to the Christmas holiday, and we were out of the office 12/24/21-12/27/21. A storage mitigation letter was mailed to the Complainant advising her of her duty as the vehicle owner to mitigate damages including excessive storage charges.
  
  The Company was able to speak with the Complainant on 1/7/22 and obtain her statement as well as the vehicle location. Rather than contacting the police on the scene it appeared the Complainant had the vehicle towed and filed a crash report at the station 2 hours after the loss.
  
  The Company called R-Zone Towing, the towing facility that had picked up the insured vehicle from the scene. Upon speaking to the towing facility,it was clear that their charges were excessive, unreasonable, & egregious,the breakdown is as follows: $695.00 towing charge, $595.00 Labor charge,$495.00 admin fee, $595.00 Special equipment fee, $495.00 dolly fee, $495.00 clean up fee, $395.00 Gate fee, along with an excessive daily storage charge of $200.00 per day. It should be noted that before the excessive daily storage charge of $200.00 per day was taken into account, the charges just to hook up the vehicle equated to $3,765.00. It should also be noted that the damage to the vehicle is extremely minimal, and one could argue this vehicle was drivable from the scene. Despite the minimal damage to the vehicle the towing facility applied charges that ultimately cannot be explained relative to their necessity and cost. As of 1/7/22 the towing facility was demanding $7,165.00 in towing charges. The Company put the Complainant on notice of the excessive charges being imposed by the towing facility she had authorized to remove her vehicle from the scene. The Company notified the insured again of the storage mitigation letter that had been sent and her potential responsibility relative to the excessive charges imposed.
  
  A representative of the Company took action of her own accord in efforts to find a reasonable resolution to the unreasonable excessive charges imposed by the unregulated towing facility. After discussion between the Complainant, the representative of the Company and the towing facility we were able to reach an agreement to remove the vehicle from the facility for $1,500.00. Although still excessive, the Company agreed to move the vehicle to a storage free facility while we completed our investigation.
  
  During the course of our investigation, it was determined that the Complainant vehicle had a co-owner that was never disclosed when the vehicle was added to the policy, which is a requirement. The Complainants failure to disclose this information generated a premium difference of $114.00.
  
  Upon settlement of the claim the Company advised the Complainant she would be responsible for her $500.00 deductible, a $114.00 premium difference for the undisclosed co-owner, a $112.56 betterment charge to the bumper cover, and $1,500.00 deduction for the excessive charges that were imposed on by the tow facility she authorized to remove her vehicle from the scene. This offer was presented to the Complainant and rejected.
  
  After further discussion the Company agreed to waive the $1,500.00 excessive towing charges as a concession to the Complainant. The Complainant settlement is as follows:
  
  Preliminary estimate:$2,896.17-$500.00 deductible-$112.46 Betterment-$114.00 premium difference=$2,169.71.
  
  The Company called the Complainant and advised her of the same to which she agreed. The Company sent a copy of the estimate to the repair facility and issued the agreed upon settlement amount. In the event a supplement is presented the Company will review to consider any additional loss related damages. The Company requests that the Complainant send in her rental invoices for further review.
  
  The Company and the Complainant have come to a resolution at this time. Ultimately the Company feels the towing charges & business practices of R-Zone towing warrant further investigation by the proper regulating agency.This is not the first occasion the Company has dealt with their facility and each occasion R-Zone towing has penalized the innocent victim of a loss with egregious fees before the vehicle even arrives at their facility.    
  
  Based on the aforementioned the Company feels it has handled the claim accordingly when working on the customers behalf to find a resolution to excessive charges & securing the vehicle in a safe location for its repairs. The claim has been resolved with the Complainant and settlement has been issued.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone: ************
  
  

  Customer response

  02/19/2022

   
  Complaint: 16740642
  
  I am rejecting this response because: ************ never called me on 12/23/2021. In fact, they never called me directly until they received these complaints. The first call that I received from this company after the loss was through the main policy holders phone number. The policy holder called me with this company on three way claiming that they did not have my telephone number. How did they try and reach me but was unsuccessful. How was the call unsuccessful? My phone was turned on and able to receive voicemails.

  Also, I did call the police, and they never showed up since no one was injured which is why the tow truck driver towed me to the police station five minutes from the scene. The other driver and I waited over two hours for Chicago Police to come and do their jobs. Also, Why didnt this insurance company ask if the car had a co-owner before issuing coverage? How did you all discover that it had a co-owner now that its time to payout? The way they discovered that the car had a co-owner now is the same way they couldve discovered it initially. My car is paid off, and I havent seen that co-owner in years. What does he have to do with my policy? Now, I have to pay a premium difference because of their mistake. I should only have to pay my deductible, and still to this day, no car! I spoke with the adjuster who said that management agreed to waive the $1,500 fee, and I agreed to pay the premium difference and betterment fee, but why should I? The deductible is all that I can and should have to pay. Weve paid this company so much money monthly for full coverage that the fees should be taken out of the money weve paid. Now, Im having to fight for the very coverage that Ive been faithfully paying for. 

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

  Business response

  02/22/2022

  
  February 22, 2022
  
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, Inc.
  ********************************************************** Chicago, ******** 60611
  
  RE:           Complaint ID#:  ********
                  Consumer: *************************
                 Claim Number: ILV86762
  
  Please allow this to serve as our counter-response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Company spoke with the Complainant on 02/08/2022 and explained that the Complainant would have to pay their deductible pursuant to their Auto Policy agreement, the Premium difference as well would have to be paid based on having a Co-Owner on the vehicle, which was not disclosed to the Company when the Complainant addressed her Application for Insurance.
  
  The Company as well will not waive the betterment charges for the front bumper based on the prior damages/screws drilled through the bumper. Since the Company has paid to replace this bumper concerning the loss.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone: ************
  

  Customer response

  02/22/2022

   
  Complaint: 16740642
  
  I am rejecting this response because: ************ claimed that I filed my complaint at 6:45 p.m. through an after hours service on 12/22/21, and they claim that they attempted to reach me but were unsuccessful on 12/23/21 and couldnt leave a voicemail. I did not file the claim until 12/23/21, so that is simply not true at all.
  

  Also, I have not received anything in writing stating that I will only be responsible for my deductible, the betterment fee, and the premium difference for the co-owner. I would like to have something in writing stating that I will only have to pay $726.00, because the estimate doesnt say that amount anywhere on the document. The estimates have the amount of $2,283.71, and I dont see $726.00 anywhere on the estimate. Thanks. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  Business response

  02/24/2022

  
  
  February 24, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *************************
                  Claim Number: ILV86762
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant was advised on 02/11/2022, that she would be responsible for the betterment, premium difference, and the deductible, which equals $726.46.
  
  The Company considers this matter resolved.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

  Customer response

  02/24/2022

   
  Complaint: 16740642
  
  I am rejecting this response because: This matter isnt resolved, because the company hasnt even submitted the estimate for repairs to the body shop. When I called the body shop where my car is located and has been since January 7th, they said that they havent received the estimates, approvals, or payment to begin repairing my vehicle. When will they pay the shop and approve the estimate? 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

• Initial Complaint

  02/03/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I had a wreck in my car on 10/29/2021 I took my car to the body shop on 11 ***** it is now February 3, 2022 and I have not got my car my car is ready its sitting at the body, The insurance will not pay the last supplement my car is ready to be picked up I have paid my deductible I have been calling the adjuster Ive been calling the claims person Ive called the claims supervisor his name is ***** my Adjuster is name is ****** I also called another claims person her name is ********************************* and now when I call the claims supervisor ***** my phone now my phone just goes straight to voicemail like he has me blocked or something 4 months is a long time not to have your car and its just sitting in the body shop complete and they dont wanna pay for Supplement I dont understand I pay my insurance monthly I have full coverage Insurance and when I need them I run into this problem when I googled them and looked online there were a lot of people complaining about them I wish I had known this before I got them as my insurance carrier I wouldve gotten somebody elseI really need some help with this all trying to do is get them to pay the supplement that they are supposed to pay is the second supplement and I cannot get them to pay it all Im getting is the runaround

  Business response

  02/08/2022

  
  February 8, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *****************************
                  Claim Number: CLTX-20-8001108
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant contacted the Company on 11/02/2021, to report an accident that occurred on 10/29/2021. The Company made an assignment to have an ***************************** inspect the Complainants vehicle.
  
  The Complainants estimate was received by the Company on 11/10/2021 and the estimate was being reviewed. The Company attempted to contact the Complainant to address the facts of loss in the accident along with possibly helping the Company gain access to the Police Report on 11/15/2021 but had to leave a message. The Complainant contacted the Company back and advised that they would email in the police report. The Company as well took a detailed statement from the Insured on 11/23/2021.
  
  The Company issued out the settlement check on 12/13/2021,to the Insured for $9028.63.
  The Complainant contacted the Company on 01/06/2022 and advised there is a supplement of repair, and the shop is not releasing the vehicle without the supplement being paid. The Company contacted the Shop of Choice of the Complainants and advised that we have not received a supplement.The Shop advised that they have not completed the supplement but once it is completed,they will send to the Company.
  
  On 01/14/2022, the Company spoke with Complainant and advised that the Bodyshop failed to send invoices with the supplement. On 01/18/2022, the Company issued out a supplement repair check to the Bodyshop in the amount of $1,232.04.  A second (2)supplement was received by the Company on 02/04/2022 and the Company issued out the settlement check on 02/07/2022 in the amount of $243.56.
  
  The Bodyshop and the Complainant have been made aware of the 1st supplemental payment and the 2nd supplemental payment. All are aware and understood. The Company believes that should the supplemental estimates have been sent in timely the vehicle would have been addressed sooner.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  

  Customer response

  02/08/2022

   
  Complaint: 16707096
  
  I am rejecting this response because: There is still a out standing **** that wasn't paid from the 2nd supplement of $2168.75 that was refused to be paid by First Chicago Insurance, they only paid $243.00, and i was told by ********************************* that i would have to make Arrangements to pay the rest, of the money i was truly p*** off...I will get a A+ rating Company from now on and not a B rate auto insurance so i do have to put up with a CHEAP COMPANY like them that want your money but don't want to take care of you when you need them. And it doesn't matter if i chose the autobody shop, i ask them if they knew a shop i could take my car to be repair, was told its up to me, i will get the paper work to show what SCA a third part company that first Chicago used and ill show you where they paided $1211.00 then subtracted it, meaning it wasn't payed, this company will LIE i see to.

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

  Business response

  02/11/2022

  
  February 11, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *****************************
                  Claim Number: CLTX-20-8001108
  
  Please allow this to serve as our counter response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Company called the Complainants repair facility of choice on 02/04/22. Both the Complainant and his repair facility of choice were advised that the Battery replacement ($271.17) was not loss related and that would be the responsibility of the Complainant. The Company also advised that 2 additional manually typed line items were denied from the supplement. The first item being an invoice from 3M products equaling $260.00 and a separate Paint and Material invoice for $204.41 for a total of $464.41. These items were covered on the estimate/supplement under the ESTIMATE TOTALS section labeled paint supplies for **** hours @38.00=$646.00. This amount is a set formula followed by all estimating platforms and Insurance Companies to allow for the cost of Paint and Material to complete the job at hand based on the paint labor hours and shop rates.    
  
  The Company has reviewed all of the supplements submitted by the Complainants repair facility of choice. The additional damages being claimed are excessive and unwarranted and at this time the Company will not be issuing any additional payments. The Complainant and his repair facility of choice have been advised of the same.
  
  Based on the aforementioned the Company has addressed the warranted loss related damages accordingly and we have fulfilled our financial obligation to the Complainant and his repair facility of choice.       
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/01/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  At 8:32pm on 12/14/2020, the vehicle insured by First Chicago Insurance struck our legally parked vehicle.The driver of the vehicle was intoxicated as were two passengers. A third passenger fled the scene at the time of the crash.The St. ****************** was called an a police report was filed, Report # ********.The driver stated that he was not driving but was witnessed trying to drive the vehicle away, which was not operable after the crash. The vehicle, a 2009 Chrysler ************** was insured by First Chicago Insurance, Policy # MOV 645657-0. Our vehicle which was totaled was a 2016 Hyundia Elantra GT. We are insured by Liberty Mutual.We filed a claim with Liberty Mutual who stated that they would subrogate to First Chicago Insurance. After a little over a year, I decided to check with Liberty Mutual about our payment and deductible. I feel I have been reasonable in the amount of time allowed for repayment.When I Liberty Mutual, they claimed that they were unable to recover the payment from First Chicago Insurance and collection efforts were unsuccessful. I figured I would call First Chicago Insurance myself.When I spoke to the claim adjuster, she stated that the claim had been denied due to no response from the vehicle owner or the drunk kid driving it the night of the accident.When I asked how they could deny a claim to an crash that was clearly caused by a vehicle which is insured by their company, she would repeat that they had not response from the owner or driver about the crash, as if it did not happen.Well, it happened, I have the police report and photos to prove it.I am looking for the refund of my deductible which was withheld from the payment made to me by Liberty Mutual when the car was determined to be totaled.

  Business response

  02/08/2022

  
  February 8, 2022
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *********************
                  Claim Number: MOV71942
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The loss was called in by the Insured on 12/15/2020,concerning an accident that occurred on 12/14/2020. The insured provide no facts of loss when the loss was called in other then to advise that an unlisted driver on his policy was driving the vehicle at the time of loss. The Insured who is paralyzed advised that they did give permission to the Unlisted driver to run some errands. The Insured was advised of the accident by an anonymous phone call advising that her vehicle was involved in an accident.
  
  The Company received a Subrogation Demand from Liberty Mutual and contacted the passenger in the Insureds vehicle at the time of loss.The passenger advised that earlier he drove the Insured vehicle to his destination and was unable to drive the vehicle back to the Insureds residence. He allowed a woman named *** to drive the vehicle back to the Insureds residence. The passenger advised that he only knows the driver by a first name of ***, and she had passed away since the loss. The passenger advised that he is a caretaker for the Insured and that he pays the Insured to use her vehicle when he needs too. During the interview with the passenger, he advised the Company that he know longer wishes to be contacted by the Company and ended the call.
  
  The Company attempted multiple times to contact the Insured to address the facts that were told to the Company by the passenger and left several messages. The Company also mailed several letters to the Insured for failing to cooperate in the investigation.
  
  The Company denied the loss on 07/15/2021, based on the Insured failing to cooperate with the investigation. At this time the Insured has still not cooperated with the investigation and the claim has been denied,should the Insured contact the Company the claim will be reopened. 
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

  Customer response

  02/08/2022

   
  Complaint: 16698080
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  My car was legally parked when the vehicle insured by First Chicago crashed into my car.

  The point of having insurance is to cover another owner's property in case of a situation such as this. As far as I'm concerned, I do not care if the owner of the vehicle that crashed into mine doesn't talk to the First Chicago, that is their problem. First Chicago insured the vehicle, the vehicle crashed into my car, damaging it beyond repair, and they should pay the claim. 

  The kid was driving them vehicle, nobody else was. We told this to the police. The kid lied to the police because he was on drugs or drunk. He was trying to drive away but the vehicle was damaged so bad that it would not go into gear. He then exited the vehicle and tried to walk away but was unable.  

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

  Business response

  02/11/2022

  
  February 11, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#:  ********
  Consumer: *********************
                  Claim Number: MOV71942
  
  Please allow this to serve as our follow up response to the above captioned matter.
  
  As the Company has stated in its 1st response,the claim was denied based on the Insured failing to cooperate with the loss.The Insureds Auto Policy contains Conditions in which the Insured, must adhere to in order for the Company to provide Coverage for the loss. At this time, the Insured has not cooperated with the investigation and therefore the Claim will remain denied until the Insured cooperates with the Company concerning the loss. 
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  
  

  Customer response

  02/12/2022

   
  Complaint: 16698080
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  It is not my fault the insured is not cooperating, just as it is not my fault that the insured vehicle caused unrepairable damage to my legally licensed, insured and parked vehicle. 

  You insured the vehicle at the time of the wreck, you need to reimburse me for the damages caused by the vehicle you insured. It is as simple as that. This is why there is insurance. I think you are failing to understand the simple concept of what the service exactly is, for which you are the vice president. Or are you a ******************* taking in money for protection, but not providing protection.

  This needs to be corrected, and I should be reimbursed the $2000 for my deductible. Plain and simple. You can take up the subrogation with my insurance company and whether you repay them is between your shady company and them.

  This is my last attempt to recover my deductible. If this fails, I will be forced to obtain an attorney for the purpose of recovering the full amount of the loss plus the pain and suffering that this loss has caused. As the vice president of the company, you have the ability to make this right.

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

• Initial Complaint

  01/31/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I suffered a hit and run Jan. 11, 2021 and have been trying to get my vehicle repaired ever since. The adjuster I had been working with didn't return emails or voicemails, several months later I found out he no longer worked for the company. I was finally able to find out who my new adjuster was and sent my vehicle to a shop to get repaired only for it to sit there for 3 weeks and no repairs were made. After getting my vehicle home I have been getting the run around for more than a month. I would like my vehicle repaired as that is what I paid my policy to cover me for.

  Business response

  02/08/2022

  
  February 8, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#: ********
  Consumer: *****************************
                  Claim Number: 21TX03063
  
  Please allow this to serve as our response to the above captioned matter.
  
  The Complainant contacted the Company on 12/02/2021 concerning an accident that occurred on 01/11/2021, roughly 11 months post-accident date.
  
  *********** made an assignment to an ***************************** to inspect the vehicle. The Complainant was contacted on 12/16/2021 and advised that she had reported the loss to GEICO Insurance, and they had denied her claim for no cooperation from their Insured. The Complainant advised that no police report was filed for the loss, however she had sent scene photos to GEICO Insurance and does not have them anymore. *********** asked the Complainant for a statement and was advised that she would call back to address the loss facts with the *************************** contacted the Complainant on 12/20/21 and was able to address a statement concerning the loss.  *********** was advised during the statement that the Complainant owns a cleaning service and utilizes her vehicle as much as 3 visits per day to drive to her customers residence/ place of business.
  
  *********** contacted the Complainant and advised that the estimate is being reviewed for over lapping damage that was not from the loss.
  
  The Complainant was contacted on 02/01/2022 and an additional statement was taken to address the coverage issues. *********** as well contacted GEICO Insurance and was advised that they had no photos from the Complainant concerning the loss.
  
  As of this same date, the claim is being reviewed for coverage. 
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone: ************
  
  

  Customer response

  02/08/2022

  At the time of the accident my vehicle was not being used for my cleaning service which I made clear. At the time I was a CNA. I have been trying to get my vehicle repaired ever since the loss but was not contacted back or directed to the correct adjuster. I provided photos more than once to Geico and provided all photos to First Chicago. I can confirm coverage with bank records. Just wondering how long it takes to compare photos.

  Business response

  02/16/2022

  
  February 16, 2022
  
  
  Better Business Bureau of Chicago & Northern ********, ********************************************************************************************************** 60611
  
  RE:          Complaint ID#: ********
  Consumer: *****************************
                  Claim Number: 21TX03063
  
  Please allow this to serve as our follow-up response to the above captioned matter.
  
  As stated in the first response, the accident was called in 11 months post-accident date. At this time, the Company is reviewing coverage based on no police report filed for the loss, along with the Complainant having multiple lapses in their policy between the date of loss and when the loss was reported.
  
  The Company has received the photos that were sent in by the Complainant, however they do not contain a date stamp as to when they were taken.
  
  The Company also received the denial letter from Geico,where they advise that they have denied the loss against their insured for failure to cooperate. Which means they never spoken with their Insured as to the accident or the actual date of loss. 
  
  Based on the above the Company is still investigating coverage for the loss, based on attempting to confirm a verifiable date of loss in which the accident took place.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  ************************
  Vice President of Auto Liability
  Phone:************
  

*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. ↩