Complaint Review: Erie Insurance Company - Charlotte North Carolina

On Dec. 1, 2009 Kathy Riser, an adjuster for Erie Insurance came out to inspect my roof for hail damage.  She asked for date of loss, I indicated that it was some time in April 2009, but didnt know the exact date. She spent approximately 15-20 minutes on the roof. She was not equipped with a ladder, I had to supply one.  She took pictures but she did not put any markers in the photos to indicate what she was taking pictures of. After inspecting the roof, she came inside and spoke with me and told me that she did not see any hail damage. Let me add it took her over 2 weeks to come inspect my roof once the claim was filed.

On 12/11/09 I had another roofer come out and look at my roof. He took pictures and indicated that I did indeed have hail damage. He also provided me with photos with markers showing where the hail damage was.

Ultimately, Erie denied my claim and told me that they would not pay to have my roof replaced.

I have had another insurance company, to inspect my roof and they also indicated that I had damage to my roof.  

Since the first visit with Kathy Riser I have had a total of 3 different companies inspect my roof and say I have hail damage. Not to mention I have also been on my roof and can also say that there is indeed damage.


On 12/17/2009, Michelle Stewart hung up the phone on me. She is a property Supervisor with Erie insurance. I was given her cell phone number and called her back and left a voicemail she never called me back. On 1/11/10 I called her on her landline again and she told me I was harassing her, on the phone. I have a witness that was right beside me and heard the whole conversation. This is not harassment at all; all she is trying to do is get leverage over on me.

Michelle Stewart thinks she can get away with the way she talked to me, she cannot. She is supposed to be the property supervisor for Erie Insurance. Ive had Erie Insurance now and they are a wonderful company as long as you pay your premiums. But when it comes time to paying a claim they dont want anything to do with it. Also, Erie Insurance is telling me that these roofing companies are going door to door telling people they can get new roofs. This has nothing to do with it, this is irrelevant. Nobody came door to door and told me I could get a new roof.

I have also talked with Phyllis Taylor at the corporate headquarters who is at 1-800-458-0811.  She told me she was going to get a letter out to me as far as what was going on. As of 2/24/10 I still have not received any documentation from her. This was stated in Dec. 2009. Also, Erie Insurance in Charlotte gave me 3 engineering companies to use to come to my home and look at my roof. My question is why cant I use who I want to use? They are mandating to me who I have to use. I didnt think it was legal for an insurance company to do that. One of the companies I spoke with told me it was a conflict of interest; they didnt feel like it was ethical because they do a lot of work for Erie Insurance. They are one of the companies that Erie Insurance referred me to use.

On January 22, 2010, Michael D. Spensieri of Donan Engineering, another company Erie referred, came to inspect my roof. When asked how long he had been a Professional Engineer, he told me 6 months. He asked several questions, the main one being when was the approx. date of loss. Again, I told him I was not sure of exact date but know that it was in April. He said he would get that information from Erie. It took about 2 weeks to receive and review his report.

Upon review of the report that Donan submitted the first discrepancy I noticed was that he stated date of loss was May 11, 2009. The report also stated that according to the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) of the National Weather Service (www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/) did not report hail within 25 miles of the subject site for this date. That is not the date I gave Erie or Donan Engineering. I am not sure why they have decided to pull May 11, 2009 out of thin air.
However, upon my own research using the same website, I did find that hail was reported in the area on April 10, 2009. This is in the same month in which I stated the loss occurred. I have attached those findings as well.

Also, I reviewed the photos that Donan shot and compared them to the photos from the other roofing company and there is no detail at all in them. They did not zoom on any particular part of the roof. The only close up shot was taken of the nail pops. The Engineer also stated that there was No collateral indicators of hail impact on the light gauge metal flashing photo 0006. On photo 0008 in which the engineer stated the Collateral indicators of hail impact on roof vent cap. Difficult to see impacted areas with white paint on vent caps. Which is completely not the case in the photos that were taken by the other companies all of which are attached and areas are circled.

 

I spoke with Bob Waylon at Donan Engineering on Feb. 18, 2010. We discussed the discrepancies in the report and that we have numerous pictures from other companies that were blown up to 8x10 size to see damage was not in May but in April.  I indicated that I felt like their company was bias and represented Erie. I asked Mr. Waylon his title he indicated it was Territory Manager. I asked him if I could speak with the owner of the company and he would not let me do so. I then told him I was going to file a written complaint with the North Carolina Insurance Commissioner office. He hung up the phone on me at 3:19 pm during this conversation.  I called the office back and talked to his secretary, Keisha at 3:30 pm and she also hung up the phone on me. The number I called Mr. Waylon on was 205-420-8060 (cell). It is disrespectful and unprofessional to have 3 different people hang up the phone on me.

 

In conclusion, my feeling is that this Engineer is trying to discredit this claim by stating that all damage is due to blistering, nail pops and man made causes. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

Please note that upon further investigation, Erie Insurance in not accredited with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) with several complaints.