ComplaintsforCincinnati Financial Corporation

• Initial Complaint

  08/10/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Cincinnati Insurance Company is refusing to cover a liability claim due to the negligence of their client. Their client failed to follow village ordinance by neglecting to properly anchor a shed (Section 154.7 F.9). He also failed to follow village code by not obtaining a building permit prior to installation. *** ******* ** ******* had no record of the shed and therefore could no conduct a final inspection that would have identified no anchors were used. A wind storm then picked up the shed, crossed the property line and damaged our property. Damages exceeded $6,000. Cincinnati Insurance adjuster D**** S***** finally came out to do and inspection 8 weeks later. A decision was supposed to by made the following week. There was no response from D**** the next week. I called him 2 weeks later asking for the status and he informed me a decision would be made at the end of the next week. Still no decision or communication. Multiple calls and messages over the next 4 weeks went unanswered. We believe based on village ordinance and code that Cincinnati Insurance and their client are liable for damages.

  

  Business response

  08/15/2024

  August 15, 2024
  
  
  Cincinnati Better Business Bureau
  1 E. 4th Street, Suite 600
  Cincinnati, OH  45202
  
  
  RE:         Your Case:                                          ********
                 Consumer/Complainant:                     ******* ******
                 Claim No.:                                           CMS *******
                 Insured:                                               ******* *****
                 Policy No.:                                          *** *******
                 Date of Loss:                                      4/18/2024
  
  
  
  
  Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the complaint filed with the Cincinnati Better Business Bureau concerning our insured, ******* *****.  The complaint was presented by Mr. ******* ******.
  
  Mr. ****** reports The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) denied a claim for property damage. A pergola on his property was damaged when Mr. ******* newly installed storage shed was destroyed during a windstorm. Debris from the shed landed on Mr. ******’s property and struck his Pergola causing damage.
  
  CIC has an insurance contract with the ******. The contract includes an Insuring Agreement which, in part, states that CIC will pay those sums Mr. and Mrs. ***** are legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage. The damage to Mr. ******’s Pergola would be considered Property Damage.  Initially, CIC and Mr. ***** did not accept liability for this accident. Damage was caused by an “act of God”, i.e. Windstorm-Tornado.  The date of loss was the date a Tornado was in the area. Wind gusts at the insured location were reported by the National Weather Service to have been 51mph on the date of loss. There were other residents in the area that also had sustained damages to their property from wind.
  
  Additional investigation was initiated following our receipt of documentation showing the storage shed anchoring was not in place.  Local Codes required permits and anchoring, with ordinances for anchoring in place. We note the anchoring ordinances concerned flooding. ******* ** ********, Sec 154.7 Protected buildings (F)(9), reads, in part, “the structure shall be anchored to resist flotation and overturning”. This is situated within Chapter 154 Flood Damage Prevention. According to Section 154.1 Purpose, the chapter and it’s contents pertain to mitigating flood risks and not wind. 
  
  Mr. ****** alleged CIC came out to view his damages 8 weeks after the damage was sustained on April 18, 2024.  We report this delay was not on the part of Cincinnati Insurance Company as we did not receive notice of this claim until June 11, 2024. Mr. S*****, the CIC field claim representative, was assigned the claim on June 12, 2024 and Mr. ****** was contacted on June 13, 2024. Mr. S***** talked with Mr. ****** on June 14, 2024. An inspection of the damages and a meeting with Mr. ****** on June 20, 2024 was scheduled.  Although the inspection took place approximately 8 weeks after the wind event as Mr. ****** reported, CIC was inspecting the loss/damage within 9 days after Cincinnati Insurance first learned of Mr. ******’s claim.
  
  Mr. ******’s complaint also mentioned communication delays. Although some calls of Mr. ****** may not have been returned, Mr. S***** was continuing to investigate this claim and conduct research. Rather than report “no new information” to Mr. ******, Mr. S***** delayed responding to Mr. ******. We note we had no prior complaints involving Mr. S*****’s work. Mr. S***** has been counseled on the importance of promptly responding to messages.
  
  Overall, although the ordinance on anchoring did not involve protection from Wind, we had some concerns with the fact the shed had not been anchored. Liability was accepted. CIC agreed to resolve this property damage claim directly with Mr. ******. We consider the matter fully resolved and closed.
  
  I hope I have adequately responded to your inquiry.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  
  Cincinnati Insurance Company
  J**** E. B****
  

• Initial Complaint

  07/01/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I was in a car accident May 8, 2024. The driver at fault is insured by Cincinnati Financial. I was eventually reached out to by the local claims adjustor Aaron D****** and given the claim number *******. I provided photos of the accident and received no further correspondence. I sent repeated emails as well as called and left a voicemail over several weeks with no response. I reached out to his supervisor Stephanie B**** and left two voicemails. I was asked over text what the claim number was and provided it as well as an explanation of why I was reaching out. I then received no further correspondence from Stephanie or Aaron. It has now been two months since the accident and I still have a damaged vehicle and have not even been able to provide a statement. I am seeking to file a complaint within Cincinnati Financial, as well as resolution for this car accident.

  

  Business response

  07/08/2024

  Good morning, please see the attached response (text below).  We sincerely apologize for any delay in the handling of this matter as that is not the standard for Cincinnati Insurance.

  Best regards,

  Brad

  Better Business Bureau
  Attn: ***** ********
  Marketplace Resource Consultant
  [email protected]
  Subject: CIC Named Insured: ******* ***** *****
  
  CIC Claim #: *******
  Company Legal Name: The Cincinnati Indemnity Company
  Claimant: **** ****
  DOL: 5/9/24
  Complainant: **** ****
  BBB Case #: ********
  
  Dear *** ********;
  This letter is in response to *** ****** BBB complaint regarding the handling of this claim and to address
  his allegations regarding the delay in the handling of his claim.
  Cincinnati Insurance’s (“CIC”) investigation into this matter indicates that the delay in handling was a lack
  of oversight by the claims adjuster.
  

  We have responded to *** **** and are progressing with the repair of his vehicle. We apologize for any
  delay in handling this matter and will make sure that Cincinnati Insurance adheres to the high standards
  we have set.
  

  Information, evidence and documents provided by CIC in regard to this matter are at the request of the
  Better Business Bureau. Production of this information is neither an expressed nor implied waiver of any
  of the privileges the Cincinnati Insurance Company may have. Moreover, this correspondence should not
  be construed as a waiver of any legal right or defense available to the Cincinnati Insurance Company
  and/or the party or parties insured under any policy of insurance carried with the Cincinnati Insurance
  Company.
  

  As always, thank you for your assistance.
  

  Sincerely,
  
  Brad Z********
  Cincinnati Insurance Co.

• Initial Complaint

  06/18/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This company has been charging me for months without being able to confirm my service over the phone. over the last 8 months I have paid them $3831 exactly for services that they can't confirm to me that they are correctly providing. Over the same 8 months this company has "forgotten to charge me for renewal fees" and then charged those fees months later, they've billed me for renewal fees without any contact months after mentioning that they forgot to charge for it, they have even forgotten to charge for entire months of service and then just decided to debit my account for all of it at once with no notice. I have asked many many times for many many people to confirm what address my coverage is being used for as they have continuously failed to update my mailing address for over 2 years at this point, which means they probably haven't updated the address I have coverage on because they're the same address. Do not do business with CIC they are awful about every form of communication. Since November I have not been able to confirm whether or not my coverage is correct and at this point I am making reports to every agency that will listen and then I will be charging back through my bank to make sure that I get at least some kind of money back from this nightmare, even though I know it won't be anywhere near what I've been paying for no service.

  

  Business response

  06/21/2024

  As the insurance carrier, we write policies for insureds who purchase coverage through independent agencies. The insured and the agency are responsible for ensuring accurate information is provided to us in order to issue and renew a policy. We contacted and discussed the situation with the agency. Per the agency, the insured reached out several weeks ago to discuss the policies. At that point it was discovered the tenant policy did not renew in November 2023 due to a lack of a unit number entered into our system, which is required to issue the policy. The auto policy did issue and has always been in force. Our underwriter helped the agency enter this information and issue the backdated renewal ensuring there was no break in coverage for the insured. The tenant policy is billed monthly resulting in several months owed when the renewal was issued. This would be in addition to the typically owed monthly premium for the auto policy.
  
  The agency informed us prior to this there was no communication with the insured in over a year.
  
  It does not appear the insured has ever been in contact with us, the insurance carrier. Rather, they were in communication with the agency who wrote the policy. Both policies have since been cancelled at the request of the insured effective 6/18/2024.

  Customer response

  06/21/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.

   

  First, actually I have contacted the insurance company directly as I have made a claim with them, that's how I figured out that my address was wrong. Second, how is it my problem that the agent "forgot" about renewal? Why was I charged for it months after the issue was found? Why am I being charged "Renewal Fees" at all for insurance that's not normal? Why am I being charged multiple times for those renewal fees? These are all huge problems with your company and the way things are communicated. I have already cancelled my accounts through the agent and if I'm billed again I will be submitting another report for both you the insurance company and Michael Hanger the insurance agent.

  
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******
  

  

  Business response

  06/25/2024

  The last claim opened on the account was reported to us, the carrier, on 1/23/2023. In reviewing the notes entered by our adjuster, there was no mention of an address need to be updated. This is the last time we can show on record the insured contacted us directly.
  
  When it was discovered the tenant policy did not renew, the underwriter helped the agency issue the renewal. Because the tenant policy is billed monthly, the insured would be responsible for paying for the months which we had not been compensated for in order to ensure there was no break in coverage. We do charge service fees to process any form of payment.  

• Initial Complaint

  04/23/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I renewed with the Cincinnati insurance company and March. Later in March, my insurance broker advised me to go elsewhere and that Cincinnati would take 5 to 10 business days to refund my money to my credit card. According to their records, it processed through April 19 but no credit was ever received on my card.

  Customer response

  04/22/2024

  This complaint is not against **** *******. They are my insurance broker that have been contacting Cincinnati Insurance Company on my behalf to get my money back. The complaint is against Cincinnati Insurance Company. 

  

  Business response

  04/23/2024

  The customer's frustrations lay with Cincinnati's refund process, not with the agency. He is still doing business with the agency just through a different carrier. Thank you for your time. 

   

  Kindest Regards,

  ****** 

  

  Business response

  05/01/2024

  May 1, 2024
  
  
  BBB Serving Southern Ohio, Northern Kentucky, Southeast Indiana
  ATTN: ***** ********
  Marketplace Resource Consultant
  1 E. 4th, Suite 600
  Cincinnati, OH 45202
  
  Hello *****,
  
  Thank you for your communication referenced as ID#********. At Cincinnati, we aim to
  provide the best-in-class service for our agencies and insureds.
  
  We are not sure why the agency stated a credit card refund with a timeline of 5 to 10 days; this
  is not Cincinnati Insurance protocol. Our refund process, generally speaking, entails providing
  refunds via paper checks and delivered via regular mail. We do not provide credit card refunds.
  Relative to this particular refund, our automated process took the cancellation transaction date
  for the policies in question as 4/11/24. Thereafter, the refund process began for a period of 7
  business days. On 4/23/24 two paper checks were mailed to the named insured. Our system
  used the policy home address. Our expectation is that the named insured has received the
  refund owed to them per our standard refund protocol.
  
  Please feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  Eadgar A. B******
  Underwriter
  Personal Lines Department
  ###-###-####
  *************************
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  04/08/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  1. We experienced two pipe ruptures during a historic cold spell in January. We called numerous mitigation companies - all of them put us on waiting lists. 2. The first company to take us off the waiting list, All New Again, presented me with a contract. I contacted Cincinnati and asked if they wanted to review the contract for reasonableness and was told it was not necessary. The contract was for time and materials with prices listed in the contract. 3. My insurance company, Cincinnati at no point contacted me with concern for the length of time mitigation was taking. 4. Work was performed by my contractor, documentation was compiled and a billing was produced with rates that matched the contract. 5. Cincinnati reduced the payout to me based on unspecified "Industry standards". My contractor spoke with Cincinnati and provided "industry standards" to support their charges. No justification was given for why these were not sufficient. 6. When I asked to bring all parties together to review and discuss these discrepancies, I was told this would not be possible. 7. After weeks of requesting the industry standards being used to reduce my claim, they referred me ***** ***** (the whole book) with no specific sections of the standard. The standard contains no listing of billing rates so there is no basis for reimbursing an “industry standard price”. 8. Cincinnati sited ***** ***** as the basis for excluding specific items from reimbursement even when I quoted the relevant portions of the standard demonstrating the usage of equipment and procedures was reasonable and within guidelines. 9. Cincinnati advised me not to pay the balance due to the contractor and when I'm sent to collections for non-payment, Cincinnati will write a letter on my behalf. 10. The invoice for mitigation services = $15,157 and Cincinnati reimbursed me $7,795 leaving approximately half of the bill unpaid. 11. I am requesting reimbursement for the balance of the invoice submitted (~$7,362)

  

  Business response

  04/10/2024

  Cincinnati has reviewed the complaint by the insured.  While we disagree with the amount of money charged by the contractor, we are issuing the balance due based on the amount billed less a credit for prior payments made.

  Customer response

  04/17/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ** ********* and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
  
  Regards,
  
  *** *********
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/12/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  On June 27, 2023 I was in an collision while driving a rental vehicle (**** ****** ********). From a complete stop at the intersection facing South, I turned left onto a highway onramp when the traffic signal changed to a green arrow. At that time the intersection was clear. The other vehicle (**** *** ******) did not stop for its red light and struck the truck I was driving after it was in what would be considered the North/South crosswalk if there was one, more than 90 degrees through the turn. The impact to the rental truck I was driving is significant and clearly to the rear half of the of the passenger side on at the truck bed. The rental company, **********, assured me that the accident was covered with the Damage Waiver coverage I paid daily on the rental. ************ Loss Damage Report states, "Facts of Loss: CX HAS CDW. DO NOT PURSUE CX. PURSUE 3RD PARTY FOR DAMAGES. RENTER WAS TURNING LEFT ON A GREEN ARROW WHEN THE 3RD PARTY PULLED OUT AND HIT RENTERS VEHICLE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE." On February 3, 2024, I picked up certified mail from the other diver's insurance, Cincinnati Insurance Companies (CIC) and their agent Matthew R******, stating it has issued a subrogation demand on me, claiming I am liable for their losses. I have asked CIC and its agent to provide evidence of liability, but their investigation only consists of the costs they paid out and pictures of their insured vehicle in some lot, not at the scene of the incident. Is this legal? It doesn’t seem morally ethical if it is. I have told CIC and its agent that I have evidence to support my side of the story, but they do not seem interested and want me to turn the subrogation claim over to my insurance company. To me, this matter has been between CIC and ************ insurance company for the past 6 months. I am scared that involving my insurance company will result in my liability rating and subsequent rates increasing over an accident I honestly do not have fault in. It seems like such a waste of time and resources for all parties involved, because CIC’s agents either left out or just didn’t look for the truth of liability.

  

  Business response

  02/15/2024

  To Whom It May Concern:

  Thank you for your concern regarding his matter.  Cincinnati Insurance's mission to resolve claims fairly and with the highest ethical standards.  Information received in your complaint was unknown to us as we never heard back from you or received anything from **********.  Without getting into further back and forth regarding your allegations, we are certainly willing to look at any further information you have pursuant to this matter and the adjuster will be reaching out to you further to discuss.  

  Best regards,

  Brad Z********

  Assistant Vice-President, Casualty Claims

   

  Customer response

  02/16/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I was able to obtain the attached "**********.Claim.********" from ************ Damage Recovery Unit (****) yesterday.  It is contradictory to the premise of Mr. Z********** claim that CIC has not heard from ********** regarding this collision.  According to ****, they have not heard back from CIC regarding their claim against CIC's insured. 

  I was also sent an email from CIC's agent yesterday with the attached PDF "denial" dated 8/21/23 that I never received.  It is interesting to me that the PDF reads, "In the absence of such liability, we will be unable to make any payment to you for damages sustained." when at this time I had not asked for payment for damages.
  

  In an effort to resolve this matter without further time lost, I have sent all the information I have shared with ********** to CIC's agent, as well as the documentation shared with the BBB, as CIC's agent has requested in yesterday's email.

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

  

  Business response

  02/23/2024

  Better Business Bureau
  

  Attn: ***** ********
  Marketplace Resource Consultant
  ****************************
  

  Subject: CIC Named Insured: *** ******
  CIC Claim #: *******
  Company Legal Name: The Cincinnati Insurance Company
  Claimant: *********** *****
  DOL: 6/27/23
  Complainant: *********** *****
  BBB Case #: ********
  
  Dear *** *********
  

  This letter is in response to *** ******* BBB complaint regarding the handling of this claim and to address
  his allegations.
  

  Cincinnati Insurance’s (“CIC”) investigation into this matter indicates that there are no independent
  witnesses to this matter nor any police report implicating either party. As all we have to rely on are the
  interviews with *** ***** and our insured driver, we have to side with our driver in this matter that he was
  not at fault. As such, we sent our demand for subrogation to *** ***** so he could forward it to his carrier
  for their investigation, as typically occurs when there is disputed liability.
  

  Colorado negligence law indicates that unless one party can prove the other party is more than 50% at
  fault, the other party cannot recover for their damages. That decision would be up to an outside fact
  finder to determine. If *** ***** does not wish to involve his liability carrier to defend him in this action, he
  then exposes himself to personal responsibility should it be found by a trier of fact that he is the most
  responsible party. I am not inferring that we intend to file any type of suit to recover our damages as we
  also have the burden to prove that *** ***** was more than 50% at fault.
  

  ************ claim is separate as they are claiming CIC/*** ****** is responsible for the damage to their
  vehicle while in the care, custody and control of *** ***** and they are pursuing CIC for these damages.
  We have denied liability to them as they have not provided any information that changes our mind that
  neither party can prove more than 50% fault at this time.
  

  Based on our investigation to date, we do not intend to move forward with any action against *** *****;
  however, if facts come to light that indicate otherwise, we reserve the right to do so.
  Information, evidence and documents provided by CIC in regard to this matter are at the request of the
  Better Business Bureau. Production of this information is neither an expressed nor implied waiver of any
  of the privileges the Cincinnati Insurance Company may have. Moreover, this correspondence should not
  be construed as a waiver of any legal right or defense available to the Cincinnati Insurance Company
  and/or the party or parties insured under any policy of insurance carried with the Cincinnati Insurance
  Company.
  

  As always, thank you for your assistance.
  

  Sincerely,
  
  Brad Z********
  Cincinnati Insurance Co.

  Customer response

  03/01/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.
  Please see the attached response to CIC's last correspondence.
  

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

  

  Business response

  03/06/2024

  CIC understands *** *****'s position on this matter and instead of continuing the back and forth, I invite him to directly contact me so that we can set up a time to discuss a potential resolution of this matter.  

  Brad Z********

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

  Phone:  513-603-5751

  Customer response

  03/14/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  Although this matter is not 100% resolved, CIC has reached out to me in good faith and we are discussing / finalizing a resolution.  I am confident that the next response will be an acceptance of their proposed agreement.
  
  Regards,
  
  *********** *****
  

  

  Business response

  03/15/2024

  *** ***** and I have discussed this and have reached a tentative agreement to resolve this matter.  We are working on finalizing the agreement which will hopefully be completed in short order.

  Thank you,

  Brad Z********

  Customer response

  03/22/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  There is forgotten value in verbal conversation.  We’re all human and would do well not to forget it, for the algorithms will not admit to their mistakes. 
  
  I’d like to recognize the successful approach CIC’s representative, Mr. Will B. Redacted, took to turn this complaint around and foster a resolution.  Two parties with dispute had a rational conversation and 25 minutes later a mutual agreement.  Whether you represent the corporation or are the individual with grievance, there is a low-cost blueprint to resolution that works universally, if universally applied.    

  Re: complaint ID ********, this complaint has been resolved.
  
  Regards,
  
  *********** *****
  

• Initial Complaint

  02/07/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  On Friday January 12, 2024 our technician ******* ****** was returning to the office to pick up parts for his next call. As he was pulling into the parking lot the unsecured gate swung open and went through his windshield and came out of his driver side window. The gate was open and not secured so when the gust of wind blew as he was pulling in that is when the accident happened. We contacted our insurance agent immediately and he stated that we needed to contact the property owners insurance since it was on his property and he is responsible for the gate. The day after the accident all of the gates were removed from the property. We were put into contact with Craig R**** Senior Claims Specialist I with Cincinnati Insurance Company. After discussion we were told that they would only cover 70% of the claim and we would be responsible for the rest. We have talked with several insurance agents in our *** groups regarding this situation and they said that based off the circumstances Cincinnati Insurance should be 100% responsible for the claim. The technician was lucky that he was not injured in the accident. The estimated cost of the damage was $14,901.95. Craig said that they car should be totaled and that they would only pay 70% of that and we would be responsible for the rest. We have a loan on the car and so we would not only lose our vehicle that we use everyday to work but pay the other 30%. We still have not come to conclusion and still without a working vehicle.

  

  Business response

  02/14/2024

   February 14, 2024 
  

  Better Business Bureau
  ***** ********
  Marketplace Resource Consultant
  

  RE: Your Case No: ********
  Complainant: ******* *******
  Our Insured: ** ******* ***
  Our Claim No.: *******
  Date of Loss: 01/12/2024
  

  Dear *** ********:
  

  Please allow this letter to serve to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 8, 2024.
  Our insured’s tenant is ***** *** *******, located in ************* **. Complainant ******* is the owner of *****
  *** *******. As referenced in his complaint, one of ***** ***** vehicles struck a partially opened gate that had
  blown open due to wind. Our insured is the owner of the gate that damaged the vehicle. Our insured admits they were
  aware of problems with the gate and, since this incident, had the gate removed to avoid any other issues.
  

  Although CIC field representative Craig R**** previously opined our insured was not entirely responsible for the
  incident and offered to pay 70% of the damage, CIC has since retracted that partial offer and paid for the total loss of
  the complainant’s vehicle to fully resolve this claim. Mr. R**** issued payment, in the amount of $13,706.71, for the
  total loss of ********* vehicle on February 9, 2024. CIC will then secure the title to the vehicle in order to conclude this
  matter.
  

  This information is being produced at the request as required by law. Production of this information is neither an
  expressed nor implied waiver of any of the privileges CIC may have associated with it. Moreover, this correspondence
  should not be construed as a waiver of any of the legal rights or defenses available to our insured.
  

  Sincerely,
  

  Michael J. D******** ***

  Customer response

  02/20/2024

  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. 
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******
  

• Initial Complaint

  10/11/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  At the end of August 2023, there were a series of bad storms that came through northern Ohio. We had high winds, heavy rain and hail. At 3AM I woke to my hallway ceiling falling in and rain coming directly into my hallway and bathroom area. I filed a claim the next day. Cincinnati sent an adjuster out to look and he never even got on the roof. He told me was terrified of being up there and did not even bring a ladder. Cincinnati denied my claim based on his inability to prove damage. I requested a second adjuster come out. After some back and forth, they sent a second adjuster out. He determined there was hail damage to the siding and he could not verify when the damage to the roof occurred even though I watched it happen. Cincinnati denied the roof again but said they would pay for the interior damage of water intrusion from the storm they say did not cause roof damage. Then, they come back again and said the roof was just old and their policy would not have covered it due to its age. At the time of the home inspection (less than a year prior) the roof was listed as replaced in 2014. The county auditor and permit department list it as 2014 also. Cincinnati said they determined is was older. Again, no actual Cincinnati employee has been out yet. Now they also say that they cannot prove there was hail damage although it was reported on the news, several weather websites, including .Gov sites, but Cincinnati says they do not recognize those sites. I also have a home inspection report that shows no prior damage to the roof or interior to the house prior to that night. They are asking me to complete the leg work that their team has already been provided or should have completed. I have been a customer in some capacity for 20 years. I have tons of emails from them and they did not even know that on their own website it lists that they do a pre-purchase inspection as they tried to say I was confused about it. But it is literally on their website.

  

  Business response

  10/25/2023

  Please see the attached response letter.

  Customer response

  11/27/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ** ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.
  
  Regards,
  
  **** ********

   

  **Just responding to the previous message. Waiting response. 

  

  Business response

  01/29/2024

  To whom it may concern,

  The Cincinnati Casualty Company responded appropriately and timely to our Policyholder ******* ********** presented claim.  We provided the policyholders with a copy of the independent engineering report which indicates the roofing system was not damaged by a covered cause of loss.  The hail damages claimed did not occur since the inception of coverage with The Cincinnati Casualty Company.  Mr. ******** advised The Cincinnati Casualty Company to close the claim file.   At his request, we proceeded to close the claim and sent the attached letter confirming conclusion of the claim.

  Should you have any questions please call me at *************
  

  Thank You
  Brian P******
  
  Brian T. P******, AIC, SCLA
  Assistant Vice President
  HQ Property Claims
  Regional Property Claim Manager – Northern U.S.
  
  Cincinnati Insurance Company
  ************ | ************************ | **** ** ******* *** ********** ** *****

• Initial Complaint

  09/21/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  On August 16, 2023 at 10:00 in the morning on ****** ******* Street, my vehicle was parked and Ms. *** M******** insured by the Cincinnnati company, collided with my vehicle on the front left side, there were two witnesses who told me reported, I called the police about what happened immediately, the officer made the report, spoke to the woman because she had gone to a place, first she refused and when he showed her the photos and that there were witnesses, she said yes and the police admitted it. He issued a fine and gave us the report. I called Cincinnati, they claim that it is hers, they took my claim, they told me that the appraiser would call me for the vehicle, a person came and took photos, they took all the information, they told me to take it to a workshop, the workshop would contact them and They would send you the cost of the repair and now that I call to request the status they inform me that they are not going to pay anything that if the insured was not the one who crashed I have to look for videos and more evidence, when there are witnesses there is a police report and the person he admitted. The claim number is ********, the police report is ******** Now they don't want to answer me about what happened.

  

  Business response

  09/27/2023

  September 27, 2023
  Cincinnati Better Business Bureau
  *** ** ******* ***** ***
  *********** ** *****
  *** ********** ********* ******* * *** ********** ********* ******* *** ********** ******** ******* * *** ********** ********* ************ ********* *******
  The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company
  RE: Your ***** ********
  Consumer/Complainant: ******** ****
  Claim No.: *** *******
  Insured: ***** ********
  Policy No.: *** *******
  Date of Loss: 8/17/2023
  
  Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the complaint filed with the Cincinnati Better Business Bureau concerning our
  insured, Brian M*******. The complaint was presented by ******** ****.
  Mr. **** reports The Cincinnati Insurance Company ("CIC") improperly denied a claim for damages to his vehicle.
  He reports the damages to his vehicle were caused by our insured and that he was told this by two witnesses.
  CIC has an insurance contract with the *********** The contract includes an Insuring Agreement which, in part, states
  that CIC will pay those sums Mr. and Mrs. ******** are legally obligated to pay as damages because of property
  damage. Certainly, the damage to Mr. ****'s vehicle would be considered Property Damage. We do not dispute the
  vehicle has damage. Our insured was firm in denying responsibility for this accident.
  Additional investigation was initiated, liability has been accepted and CIC has agreed to resolve this property damage
  claim directly with Mr. ****. We consider the matter resolved and closed.
  I hope I have adequately responded to your inquiry.

  Respectfully,

  
  Cincinnati Insurance Company
  James E. B****
  

  Customer response

  10/03/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ** ********* and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
  
  Regards,
  
  ******** ****
  

• Initial Complaint

  09/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In June2023, my wife's jewelry was left in our hotel room and was taken by someone who entered the room last. After checkout Unfortunately, a proper investigation was never conducted. I have exchanged multiple emails with ******, the hotel, and Myles from the Cincinnati Insurance Group. They claim a lack of evidence, but when an officer arrived at the hotel two weeks after the incident, he faced challenges as the hotel did not cooperate with his request for an investigation, and ****** did not respond to the officer's attempts to contact him. The officer was merely informed that the hotel had taken care of everything. Regrettably, the hotel's handling of the investigation was negligent, This prompted me to contact , the hotels CEO and Human Resources via email. Subsequently, Cincinnati Insurance Company and Myles became involved, but I had to initiate contact with them. Myles repeatedly delayed the investigation by weeks, citing the need for statements from those who entered the hotel room. However, he couldn't obtain these statements timely as the employees were absent for weeks, which raised suspicion but I was informed someone not being at work is not suspicious, but under these circumstances it seems it is. It has now been almost four months, and the Cincinnati Insurance Group continues to cite a lack of evidence. No one has examined security cameras, spoken to management or the employees in person nor was even in the room when these statements were written. Myles is basing his findings solely on employee statements, which I find inadequate. I have since contacted Marriott Corporate, and I learned that their policy is to search the belongings of the person involved if a theft report is filed on the same day. However, no one searched the housekeepers, a violation of ********** own policy. This oversight could have saved a significant amount of time, as I am confident the missing jewelry would have been found if policies and procedures had been followed.

  

  Business response

  09/22/2023

  September 13, 2023
  

  ***** ********
  Marketplace Resource Consultant
  BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU
  1 E. 4t1i Street, Suite 600
  Cincinnati, **** 45202:
  
  RE: Claim no.: *******
  Insured: ****** ******* **** *****
  Policy: ***********
  Loss Date: June 3, 2023 (For Reporting Purposes only)
  BBB ID No.: ********
  Complainant: ******* *******
  

  Dear *****,
  

  The Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) confirms receipt of your letter dated September 12,
  2023, regarding the above noted BBB ID number, thank you. Please note that the claim in question
  is not an **** based claim it is claim domiciled in the state of ********, I bring this to your attention
  as ******** law would apply to this matter not **** law.
  

  Responding to the BBB:, CIC volunteers the following information:
  • On 7-21-23 The ***** ********* ****** (**) notified CIC that our SHI, reported a
  potential first party coverage claim, regarding potential Employee Theft.
  • On 7-24-23 CIC established a First Party Claim file and communicated to our insured
  SHI, its duties and obligations under the policy, which included but was not limited to in
  the event that SHI wished to pursue a formal claim executing a Proof of loss form and
  providing any and all evidence that they may have to support that claim.
  • On 7-25-23 SHI returned its executed POL, without sufficient documentation to support
  the loss amount asserted or that an employee was a thief in this matter.
  • On 7-26 our Field Representative, reached out to the SHI GM but was unable to reach
  him so he left a message to contact CIC.
  • On 7-27-23 SHI provided a photo of the alleged missing jewelry, our FR spoke to the
  SHI, GM and was advised that the jewelry was not found. Our Field Representative also
  obtained the statements of several employees of SMI this same day and no one admitted
  to theft, nor admitted to knowing of any SMI employee committing employee theft. Our
  FR also obtained the statement of the victim, the victim, while noting that her jewelry
  was missing did not see who took said jewelry.
  • From 7-27-23 ti118-2-23 our Field Rep attempted to secure additional statements of the
  alleged employee involved; however, no statement was ever provided to CIC by the
  alleged wrongdoer. That said he did provide a written statement to SMI and we presume
  to the Police denying theft.
  • On 8-16 CIC wrote to the alleged wrongdoer, in one final attempt to garner his input, and
  we did not receive a response.
  • On 8-23-23 CIC obtained the local police report. That report does not advise of any
  finding of fact that an employee of SMI committed employee theft.
  • On 8-24-23 CIC received the alleged wrongdoer's personnel file from SMI, there was
  nothing found in that file to raise suspicion that this employee is a thief, there is no
  notation or confirmation in that file that SMI concludes that this former employee is a
  thief.
  ~ On 9-7-23 The claim filed by SMI was denied as SMI did not provide any evidence to
  support that an employee of SMI committed employee theft, a courtesy copy of this
  denial was also forwarded to the wife of *** *******, the alleged victim.
  • On 9-8-23 *** ******* and the victim notified our Field Rep to advise that they disagree
  with our position. Later that day our Field Rep notified *** ******* and the alleged
  victim that we stand by our prior denial of the SMI claim.
  Additional information necessary for review.
  • The coverage under the policy is first party coverage only, meaning that only SMI has
  standing to assert a claim. A 3rd party does not have standing to assert a claim.
  • In addition to the above, at no time did the alleged victim or *** ******* assert a
  claim on the policy, they were merely courtesy copied on our decision to deny the claim.
  • Additionally, even if the alleged victim and/or *** ******* wish to file a 3rd party
  liability claim against SMI, CIC does not carry the liability coverage for this insured
  so we would have no duty to respond to that claim.
  • Finally, the policy makes it clear that CIC has no duty to prove the insured's claim for
  them, it is the responsibility of SMI to support their claim that:
  1. An employee committed employee theft, which they did not do.
  2. Document the amount of the loss, which SMI also did not do. There is no
  documentation that SMI provided to support that the alleged jewelry ever existed in an
  SMI hotel room.
  • Finally, it appears that most of the complaints filed are against SMI. CIC does not
  control the fact, that the alleged incident occurred on or about June 3, 2023, and was
  not reported to us until7-24-23.Obviously, any search of an employee's person (alleged
  by *** ******* that this should have occurred) was stale by the time that the claim was
  reported to CIC over a month later.
  Based upon the above, The Cincinnati Insurance Company does not intend to take any additional
  action regarding this complaint as our duty is to SMI only, not with a 3rd party relative to a first
  party coverage policy
  
  Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me accordingly.
  Respectfully,
  ~~
  Michael F. F**
  

  
  

*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. ↩