Complaint Review: AAA Northern California Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange - Suisun City California

Employee 'osabung'.... yes, you are missing something.  it seems you have missed out on reading what my complaint was about.. i'm not sure just how i could make it more clear than i have already.. the facts are:  that the vehicle was located inside the yard of the body shop for a total of 27 days, during which it was not driveable or usable in any manner one could imagine.. it was not for a period of three days only.. again, and again, it was 27 days, 27 days!  that is 24 more days than your fine company deemed it acceptable to pay me for the use of my vehicle for the purposes of transporting the woman whose car was damaged under her policy with you.  

i do not understand why you could have actually read my complaint and still have come up with your approximation of 3 days that the vehicle was in the shop and not available for use.. believe me, i counted each and every day of those 27 days as the vehicle's owner also stayed at my small mobile home and it was not something that i would have had an issue with had it been only three days.. it went on and on, with nearly daily calls to the auto body shop asking how much longer would it be before the car could be picked up and used.  the lady had come for a short visit and ended up not being able to go home for nearly a month plus...if the vehicle had been in the shop and unavailable for use, you would not have been reading this because i would not have complained to begin with..

your company did not fulfill its obligation under the terms of their contract.. each contact with your company led to my questions not being answered honestly and kept trying to not answer them at all and instead redirect me to some other reality where they would have been possibly correct... there was no honest deliberation nor attempt at actually resolving the matter except by ignoring the facts i presented to them and not answering the questions i put to them... those ARE the FACTS.. your company did not meet the terms that it itself made in writing and swindled me out of what was due me.. please go back and read what has been written before.. see if somehow you can still come up with the car not being able to be used by the owner for more than a period of three days...

you can't unless you somehow are able to ignore what i have written over and over again.... your company made the decision to RIP ME OFF for $600, plain and simple... no one should purchase insurance with you and expect that the terms of their contract will be honestly met..... as for being in business for over 100 years- yes you could still be functional and indeed making a good profit just by the fact that there are many fewer claims made than the number of people you insure.. and until recently with the advent of the internet and companies such as 'the rip off report', who would ever know just how many people had experienced the same kind of dishonest service that i have... i'm sorry, but yes, you missed more than just 'something'..   reed 

CSAA Employee ==  Since there has been no further response for a month now, I am assuming that you have been unable to respond; either because you have found information about my post that leads you to believe that I have been truthful and the company you represent is not quite what you had thought it was in fairly treating it's customers, or your company has prevented you from any further response. If I had misrepresented any part of my complaint, I would have expected a response informing me as to what I may have been confused about concerning the claim. If I am wrong or confused as to anything that I posted about this issue, please let me know. Otherwise, I hope that I may have shed some light on this company's less-than-honest practices. I hope that your honest desire to want to help has not had any negative effects on your job. I thank you for wanting to help.

 To CSAA employee....  The date of loss is 11-23-10, with the claim number 02-1FE770-2.  The claim was first handled by a M. Lucero, and then taken over by E. Eslinger.  A return letter was received in reply to a question by me as to the conditions of the policy as regards to reimbursement for the use of my vehicle ( we were told that the only rental company we could use was Hertz and that company has no office in our area- 93514- so I was required to use my 1980 pickup truck for transportation for the insured person listed in this claim); which stated in bold type that reimbursement for such transportation was for the period of time in which the damaged vehicle was not available for use, at the rate of $25 per day with a cap of $750.  When I received a check for reimbursement for only $75, I sent another letter to E. Eslinger asking about the inconsistency and was told in her return letter that the $75 amount was based on an estimate by the auto body shop that the work would take 11 hours to repair, and hence, a three day period for reimbursement for transportation.  The statements on the two letters are in direct conflict with each other.  When the statement concerning the terms of the policy state ' for the period of time in which your vehicle is not available for your use', and that period of time is 27 days, then the amount of reimbursement should have been $675, not the $75 based on an estimate by the body shop.  There was another issue involved concerning a broken window mechanism which the body shop said was not the result of the accident. It was, and an affidavit was made by the claimant to support that fact.  However, the word of an auto body repairman in a town of 4,000 was accepted and we were told that the vehicle would need to be examined by a certified BMW technician as to the cause of the damaged window regulator for any reconsideration of repair of the window.  The auto body repairman was not certified by BMW; an affidavit was signed and notarized  by the claimant as to when the window regulator broke- the CHP officer and a Caltrans worker had to help get the window raised back up to a closed position as the accident occurred in a snow storm- and yet a legal document signed under penalty of fines and imprisonment that stated that the window broke at the time of the accident, was ignored (not mentioned in any return correspondence) in favor of the word of a non BMW body repairman in a town of 4,000.  There was a considerable amount of correspondence for over a year before the claimant finally just gave up.  The fact that she even went to such lengths as making out an affidavit should have been recognized as a more factual description than that of an auto body repairman who actually damaged the door panel of the BMW while trying to remove it to see the damage to the window regulator.  As I've stated before, this claim was handled in an manner which suggested a manipulation of the facts in order to pay the claimant the smallest amount possible for a settlement.  If you are able to help in this situation, it would be appreciated. Thank you

I agree with you that AAA should have paid for a rental vehicle for 27 days, if in fact your vehicle was in the shop for 27 days. I don't understand why we wouldn't and in 8 years with the company I've never heard such a complaint or anything similar. Something doesn't seem right. I'm not sure why it wouldn't have been paid.

Just a few questions, did you end up having to pay the 27 days for the rental vehicle out-of-pocket? Do you by chance have the claim # and/or the Claim Adjusters information? What date did the claim take place?

AAA has been and is a great company that I'm proud and grateful to work for. I feel it really is an ethical company which stands by their product and promise to our Members, Insureds and Claimants which is why I feel so passionate about it. To hear you upset bothers me and I don't mind looking into this for you to try and see if I can get you some answers.

If in fact you'd rather pursue this in small claims court, that's okay, too. You definitely have that right. I am just trying to see if there is something I can look into for you to help you resolve this.

"   If I had the ability to pursue this in court, I would not hesitate to take legal measures for a lawsuit..."   

  You should do exactly that.   Small claims courts were designed specifically for cases like this.   No lawyer required. 

 Thank you for your reply.  I'm glad that someone within your company at least cares about the work they do.  I had received a letter in which was a statement was printed in bold type stating that the policy contained a description of reimbursement for transportation which read ' You will be reimbursed  for the period of time that your vehicle is not available for your use, at the rate of $25 per day with a total amount of no more than $750'.  The vehicle was at the body shop and not available for anyone to use for a period of 27 days.  That is a factual statement.  However, when your company sent a check for $75, and when I wrote to the claims office about the discrepancy in the amount of the payment, I was told that they had based the $75 amount of reimbursement on the body shop's estimate that the work would take approximately 11 hours, therefore the generous reimbursement for $75.  I did not cash the check, feeling that in doing so I would have shown acceptance of the amount sent.  I spent over a year, writing about this and other discrepancies in the claim on many occasions.  Each response from the claims office would not recognize nor answer my questions concerning what had been said in my previous letters about what the office said was covered by the policy and the amount that was determined by the time estimate by the body shop.  The claims office used an estimate of time for the repairs by the body shop; they ignored the fact that the vehicle was at the body shop and not able to be driven for a much longer period of time.  And that is only one of the issues related to the claim.  To show in writing the conditions for reimbursement, and then ignore those same conditions in favor of issuing a much smaller reimbursement based on other conditions is, in my opinion, fraud.  If I had the ability to pursue this in court, I would not hesitate to take legal measures for a lawsuit...  Say one thing, do another- not right in any book.....

I'm actually an Insurance Agent for CSAA, which is the Northern California AAA branch. Like the Auto Club of Southern California, we also have a good reputation and I don't believe we would have stayed in business over 100 years if we didn't.

In saying that, I don't believe that every Insured is going to be 100% happy with every decision or claim that comes up. That's just how it goes, unfortunately. Not everyone will always be happy. Anyway, I'm trying to understand your situation. From what I'm reading, it sounds like the car was in the shop for 3 days. AAA's rental coverage provides a car rental for up to 30 days at $25 per day, if needed while your car is being repaired and/or replaced. AAA will not pay you for the additional 27 days, unless your car was still in the shop being repaired for those days.

Am I missing something? I'm not sure I understand your complaint and if I do, AAA paid exactly what should have been paid if the vehicle was in the shop for 3 days.