Complaint Review: The Hartford - Hartford Connecticut

I had hoped that Hartford was about to address this problem with a view to resolving it. But it was all a sham. My complaints to the BBB in Connecticutt was abused by Hartford. The culture of corruption continues.

Tell me where, in anything that I have written here, that I claimed that Hartford should pay me 25,000.00? Tell me where you get the information that the insurance policy that Hartford issued to me, and I quote you, "states clearly" the words "up to"? I invite you, as I did with Mikie, to call, write or fax Hartford for copies of their policies. Just to further update this complaint: I finally received a response to my letter of complaint lodged with the Connecticutt Better Business Bureau. Their response is centered in the language of the "Arbitration" clause in the policy. This is their continuation of acting in bad faith. Let's see if any of you insurance wizards are conversant with the language in an insurance policy. "Both" parties have to agree to arbitration. I did not, have not and will not agree to arbitration, and I informed Hartford of this. Arbitration involves, they get to choose an Attorney, I get to choose an Attorney. Both their attorney and my attorney select a "third" party to act as the Abritrator ( it does not necessarily have to be an attorney). Hartford has to pay their attorney (which is someone they have on staff anyway) I have to pay my attorney. Then both parties have to pay the "third" party arbitrator. This is another scurrilous tactic on the part of "ALL" insurance companies, to con the insured into thinking they are getting fair treatment. By the time all the Shylocks are paid the victim winds up with nothing and the lawyers get the loot. Oh and just in case this person who claims to be in Alaska, is a lawyer, here is my advice to any other victims who might log on to this complaint. Do not trust an ambulance chasing lawyer. Their interests lie only in their one third cut. Again I invite Trevor to keep coming back.

George, George, George...you honestly expect an insurance company to pay the maximum limit on your policy, even though the damages/injuries are less? This is Insurance 101. The policy clearly states that they will pay UP TO the limit shown.

Mikie, Mikie, Mikie! I was worried about you. I thought your blood pressure had caused you to be ill. I don't really enjoy engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but I'm glad you're back, anyway. I'm sincere. I really am glad that you're back. You are a constantly, consistently indisputable proof of the sleazy tactics of insurance industry people. Under any other circumstances I would not dignify your rebuttal with an answer. But there is most likely paranoid motivation emanating from you. I will try to empathize with you. It must be horrifying to go through life, hating to be hated. Enough!!! Let's see the content of your rebuttal. You call me a retard'. You accuse me of extortion. You say that if my policy' does not actually spell UP TO in those words, somehow or other it does so in Legalese. I'm curious! Is legalese what you majored in, where ever or if ever you majored in it? Ah yes! You insult me with that 8th grade education comment. Call me thickheaded. Display your inability to articulate by using Freaking Dumb as another attempt to insult me. Then you return to the legalese arena by suggesting that an army of lawyers spent, or spend, countless time and energy to write a policy that never has to be honored. So insurance companies are home free to collect premiums, fully protected by the legalese'. Really bold of you to post your e mail address on this site (or any site for that matter) would that be under the category as freaking dumb'? Were you looking into a mirror when you wrote all of this?? You assume (as you do in most things in your life) that I have a scanner to send you a copy of the Hartford policy. Well I'm just too dumb I guess to e mail you something (anything)and let you have access to my computer through my e mail. Now you being in the insurance industry, I suggest you write, call or fax Hartford for copies of their insurance policies. While you are at it, tell them that you are acting as their advocate, to handle their interests in legalese, on the internet, on Ripoff.com. Perhaps I misread part of what you were saying! Do they really ask prospective insurance employees if they kick puppies? Is that a required part of the psychological makeup of the insurance industry? You attribute the guy at Hartford, as knowing his head from his a*s (a poor selection of words). My question is; does he know which is which, when he has both hands on it? For that matter, do you?? You accuse me of fraud and also of having overlapping policies. Another baseless assumption, but nevertheless ongoing proof of the attitude and practices of the insurance industry. You also say that I have mental deficiency, so why then would you demand an answer to any question that you might put forward? What quality of answer would you expect from a freaking dumb mentally deficient? You are a blessing Mikie, you have no idea how much!

>>At last the truth comes out. Mike of Clearwater Fla is in the insurance business.<< Right you are George. I mentioned this several times on both of my responses here. Glad it finally hit you. And who better to address your complaint than someone who actually works in insurance? >>He reflects the exact attitude that Hartford does. << Yes, it's called frustration. From beating my head against the wall because some internet retard can't understand a very basic explaination about how property casualty insurance works, no matter how it is explained to him. >> He is afraid that this report of mine will have victims of auto accidents, that his insurance is supposed to cover will ask him to be honorable and responsible. << Incorrect. I've been active on this site for over 2 years. I've helped people who had problems and valid complaints against insurance companies. Your complaint, however, is frivolous, and completely without merit. It's a shame that you can mark up a companies record like this in an attempt to extort money, when they have done no wrong. >>Mikie wants your money and wants to rip you off by not honoring what is in the insurance contract that he writes.<< Georgie wants to become such a thorn in Hartford's side that they pay him money they do not owe him. >> Mikie-- your customers should read the policies that you write, and if it does say UP TO anything, they should not buy from you. << You're completely out of line. Your insurance coverage pays for the value of a claim, up to a maximum of $25,000. It is not the $25,000 lottery that you win if you get into an accident. Sorry to disappoint you. I realize that your complaint is about the wording in your contract. Those contracts are written by lawyers, scores of them. Are you actually suggesting that there is an error in the writing of insurance contracts that dates back 70+ years and that everyone who ever got into an accident is owed policy limits? Are you suggesting that no one ever saw this until you George, with your infinite wisdom sat down to read your policy? Don't flatter yourself. >> My policy does not state UP TO. << If it doesn't say "UP TO" in those exact words, it says the same thing in legalese. It's unfortunate that your 8th grade education didn't supply you with the knowledge to comprehend a legal contract. >>What any company states on their web site has no effect on what is ACTUALLY stipulated in the insurance contract.<< Correct, but on the website, they managed to put it in terms you would understand. >>You also need to see a doctor for treatment of your blood pressure. The very way you typed your response is a clear indication that you are out of control.<< I'm just trying to beat some knowledge into the most thickheaded being ever to walk the face of this earth. Clearly, you don't have the capacity for being corrected. Which is why your complaint is still unresolved. >>You also need to collect actual insurance policies from your neighbors (because I know you have no friends to ask) and read them. You will not find the words UP to anything in them. I have checked Argonaut, Geico, American Family and others. << Again, claiming that all insurance companies made a mistake for the last 70+ years, so they all owe policy limits to everyone George? They just missed what might be the MOST important clause in the entire contract... their right to pay only what the claim is worth? How freaking dumb are you George? Seriously, you really think something like that would be missed by the lawyer that wrote the contract? Much less by the other lawyer that reviewed it, then the lawyer that reviewed that revision? Or the teams of lawyers that offered their input? Or the insurance executives who approved the documents? Or don't you think that AT SOME POINT in the last 70 years SOMEONE would have noticed it?! Who would have thought, the guy who finally bankrupt the insurance industry and destroyed the stock market in the process would be George Scot from Phoenix AZ, who wants his $25,000 NOW DAMMIT. Get real George, you're wrong. >> Curiously none of them have the words UP TO in them. In fact they are almost identical in the content of thier policies. << Look, SCAN your policy, send it to me [email protected] - I'll be more than happy to point out where it says this. Until then, stop posting your excrement here. Put up or shut up George. >>But keep coming back. You only serve to prove that the corrupt attitude of your insurance company is about the same as I am encountering with Hartford.<< Right. Right again George. We're all corrupt. They only hire corrupt people. The first question they ask at the job interview is usually: "Are you out to get everyone?" Which is normally followed by: "Do you kick puppies?" All sarcasm aside, do you really believe they have developed a method of recruiting people that don't mind screwing people? The only difference between you and the guy at Hartford that you're talking to, is that he knows his head from his a*s. As for the "attitude" you're getting... It's because you can only explain something to a person so many times, before it becomes apparent that they will never understand. You hear what you want to hear George, and outright REFUSE to accept anything else. >>Hartford has made no effort to resolve my complaint, now in it's ninth (9th) month.<< Wrong. The only effort that needs to be made is to explain to you that your complaint is without merit. This has been covered thoroughly on this site, and I'm sure by The Hartford as well. >>In all of my attempts to resolve this complaint and avoid litigation, I now discover that Hartford filed a 'cancellation' notice with the Arizona Insurance Commission. This is a vicious and malicious action. There is nothing in their policy that reqwuires me to inform them in any way by any means, to the effect that I had Insured my auto with another company.<< Err, you're kidding me right? YOU CANT HAVE OVERLAPPING INSURANCE COVERAGE. THIS IS FRAUD WAITING TO HAPPEN! I see what you're up to George. You have multiple insurance policies, then you get into an accident and expect to get paid multiple times? Doesn't work that way. Only the most recent policy will pay. And yes, if they discover you have overlapping policies, they CAN and WILL cancel you. It would be illegal for them to have that information and NOT cancel you, because they would know that your policy is no good, and therefore they couldn't accept payment on it. >>This action of theirs is viciously and maliciously intended to create problems for me to secure insurance with alternative companies.<< No, it's intended to make sure you can't scam them and other insurance companies. Seriously, did you really think that would work? Sorry they called you on your little scam. Are you really going to try to defend it here? >>Not only do they act in bad faith, their actions are vicious and malicious.<< How so? You already have insurance coverage. So what is vicious and malicious about it? All they did was make sure you didn't have to pay for a policy that was no good anyway, due to overlapping coverages. In summary George, if you want to collect policy limits, I offer you the following advice: 1. Take out a nice big fat LIFE insurance policy. 2. Do the world a favor and step out in front of a truck. You'll get your policy limits. And before you go replying with more of your nonsensicle dribble, STOP and answer me this one question. Say anything that you want but I just want THIS ONE QUESTION ANSWERED. Read George: because I know you have a mental deficiency, but make sure you don't miss this question... GEORGE - ANSWER THIS: If I get into an accident with an uninsured motorist, and sprain my pinky finger, and my policy limits are $50,000 for UM/UIM: Should I collect $50,000 dollars? ANSWER IT GEORGE. I eagerly await your reply.

Pete is making a career out of posting on this rip off report. He obviously has noting better to do. But he is welcome to express his opinion, and I hope he continues to do so, and do so often. At least I will get a spelling lesson. He must be a highly eduficated wannabee.

Pete is obviously an insurance salesman. Besides all insurance companies charge much higher rates in Arizona than the same coverage costs in his state. My complaint in this web site is an attempt by me to avoid litigation. These insurance sales people choose to ignore the fact that I have not yet filed a civil action. Get a life Pete.

As I pointed out earlier, once you've threatened to sue a company, they won't consider you a valued customer or even a friend anymore. Car insurance can be cancelled for any reason at the end of each six month policy period. It can't be cancelled prematurely unless the customer doesn't pay the premiums. You have been continuing to pay the premiums throughout all this, right? If not, you are giving them the perfect excuse to cancel you.

I'm glad they did. I surely don't want my premiums to be raised because some old coot decides he wants to scam my insurance company. FYI, George, it's spelled 'libel', not 'liable' as you showed it. If more companies took a stand at these frivilous suits/disputes, the world would be a better place. Who's your carrier now? How soon before you drive into the middle of the intersection, put on your brakes, and then yell: Whiplash, Whiplash? You got exactly what you deserve--nothing--plus cancellation.

In all of my attempts to resolve this complaint and avoid litigation, I now discover that Hartford filed a 'cancellation' notice with the Arizona Insurance Commission. This is a vicious and malicious action. There is nothing in their policy that reqwuires me to inform them in any way by any means, to the effect that I had Insured my auto with another company. This action of theirs is viciously and maliciously intended to create problems for me to secure insurance with alternative companies. In addition it is intended to cause negative effects on my credit. Not only do they act in bad faith, their actions are vicious and malicious.

At last the truth comes out. Mike of Clearwater Fla is in the insurance business. He reflects the exact attitude that Hartford does. He is afraid that this report of mine will have victims of auto accidents, that his insurance is supposed to cover will ask him to be honorable and responsible. Mikie wants your money and wants to rip you off by not honoring what is in the insurance contract that he writes. He is a genuine snake oil salesman. He will tell you how great his coverage is and how great his company is until the time comes to honor a proper claim. Then he will go into the old shell game. Mikie-- your customers should read the policies that you write, and if it does say UP TO anything, they should not buy from you. My policy does not state UP TO. What any company states on their web site has no effect on what is ACTUALLY stipulated in the insurance contract. You also need to see a doctor for treatment of your blood pressure. The very way you typed your response is a clear indication that you are out of control. You also need to collect actual insurance policies from your neighbors (because I know you have no friends to ask) and read them. You will not find the words UP to anything in them. I have checked Argonaut, Geico, American Family and others. Curiously none of them have the words UP TO in them. In fact they are almost identical in the content of thier policies. But keep coming back. You only serve to prove that the corrupt attitude of your insurance company is about the same as I am encountering with Hartford. Hartford has made no effort to resolve my complaint, now in it's ninth (9th) month. I have tried every reasonable way to approach them without going into litigation. 1st I filed my claim . 2nd I wrote to them directly. 3rd I have filed this rip off report. Still they do nothing. Next week I will make my attempt to go to the media, meanwhile I will try to find other web blogging sites.

Your complaint is unfounded, unreasonable, and without merit. How far does Hartford need to go to address it? They will not, and should not pay you $25,0000 just because you made a complaint alleging that they should. There is no reason for them to do so, because you are FLAT OUT WRONG. I challenge you, to find one single solitary instance in property casualty insurance, where they are required to pay out policy limits on every claim. (Please keep in mind, life insurance is NOT property casualty insurance) A property/casualty insurer ALWAYS has the right to examine a claim on it's own merits, and pay only what the claim is worth. Also, you stated: "How would you feel if your premiums were raised 15 to 20 percent right now?" I know how I'd feel if my premiums were raised 500% because insurers were required to pay out $25,000 to every moron who bumps his head on the steering wheel and gets a headache as a result of an accident. You also stated: "If this web site did not allow you to respond until you provided information on how I might trace you and file action against you for liable with your accusation of me trying to "scam" my own insurance company." Shove it, seriously, you sue happy crock of bullturd. You're not going to file action against anyone. You were in an auto accident, you did NOT win the lottery. You're threatning to sue the people who respond here, just like you're threatning to sue the hartford? I said it once, I will say it again, as due to your inherent mental deficiency, you did not understand me the first time: Please visit: http://thehartford.com/corporate/pl/auto/learn_more/res_faqs.html#whyuninsured Where it says: "Uninsured Motorist coverage protects you and anyone riding in your vehicle if you are involved in an accident with someone who has no insurance. Even if your state requires insurance coverage, there are those who ignore the law. Should you be injured due to someone else's irresponsibility, Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy." LOOK AT THE LAST LINE IT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ON THE HARTFORD WEBSITE IN BLACK AND WHITE AND INVALIDATES YOUR COMPLAINT: "Should you be injured due to someone else's irresponsibility, Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy." "Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy" "medical expenses up to the limit on your policy" "up to the limit on your policy" "up to the limit on your policy" "up to the limit on your policy" "up to the limit on your policy" "up to" "up to" UP TO GEORGE UP TO THE LIMITS ON YOUR POLICY. NOT MAXIMUM PAYMENT EVERY TIME GEORGE - UP TO THE LIMITS. UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO UP TO DO YOU GET IT GEORGE? IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE. IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. I SUGGEST MAKING AN AUDIO TAPE THAT SAYS "Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy" over and over and over again, so yu CAN LISTEN TO IT IN YOUR SLEEP. HOW FAR DOES HARTFORD NEED TO GO TO ADDRESS A COMPLAINT THAT CLEARLY HAS NO MERIT?!? THEY TOLD YOU YOU WERE WRONG AND THE CLAIM IS WITHOUT MERIT, WHAT ELSE DO THEY NEED TO DO? DO THEY JUST PAY $25,000 to ANYONE who wants it? NO - THE CUSTOMER IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT JUST PAY YOU WHATEVER YOU ASK FOR - SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU. Also, please stop asking people to call Hartford to discuss your complaint, as Hartford cannot give them any information on your situation or policy due to privacy regulations. IF YOU KNEW THE FIRST d**n THING ABOUT INSURANCE - You would know that this is considered personal financial information. It's like calling a bank and asking them if someone has an account there. I hope that this time I made it clear enough that your claim is completely and utterly invalid, as you seem to have missed that point last time. And again, I am IN NO WAY affiliated with The Hartford, nor have I ever been. I work for a competitor, and I paticipate in subrogation and litigation AGAINST the Hartford on a regular basis.

Read the report again.. and then read it again and again until you read it properly--- I stated quite clearly that I was hit by an UN insured. NOT insured. I fully expected people like yourself to come out, with your ties to Hartford, and so deeply offended by not being addressed by THE Hartford. If this web site did not allow you to respond until you provided information on how I might trace you and file action against you for liable with your accusation of me trying to "scam" my own insurance company. Read my report and read my otheer responses--- Hartford does not and will not address my complaint. Tell me you think that, the actions of your precious Hartford is that of a reputable company. How would you feel if your premiums were raised 15 to 20 percent right now?

Going through the responses on this so-called Rip-Off, I can see most of us feel you're just trying to scam your own insurance company. That's unusual--most people go after the other insurance company--especially when they have the irrefutable proof(?) you have that you were severely injured. I note one thing you said in response to me: 'Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured.' How do you know she was insured? I don't know if the broad who rear-ended me even HAD insurance! For all I know, The Hartford dragged her into court, won a judgement, and she's now paying at the rate of $20 a week to pay them the money they put out for my claim. I don't know, and I don't care. That's why I carry insurance. You keep mentioning to the responders that they should 'call The Hartford,' they should 'contact The Hartford.' What for? It's YOU who are trying to scam your insurance company. Most of us know you have two chances of getting more $$$ from them--slim and none. Don't be surprised if after they wash their hands of your 'claim', they cancel you. Expect any other company that would be willing to insure you to charge some hefty premiums.

Going through the responses on this so-called Rip-Off, I can see most of us feel you're just trying to scam your own insurance company. That's unusual--most people go after the other insurance company--especially when they have the irrefutable proof(?) you have that you were severely injured. I note one thing you said in response to me: 'Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured.' How do you know she was insured? I don't know if the broad who rear-ended me even HAD insurance! For all I know, The Hartford dragged her into court, won a judgement, and she's now paying at the rate of $20 a week to pay them the money they put out for my claim. I don't know, and I don't care. That's why I carry insurance. You keep mentioning to the responders that they should 'call The Hartford,' they should 'contact The Hartford.' What for? It's YOU who are trying to scam your insurance company. Most of us know you have two chances of getting more $$$ from them--slim and none. Don't be surprised if after they wash their hands of your 'claim', they cancel you. Expect any other company that would be willing to insure you to charge some hefty premiums.

I filed a complaint with the BBB in Connecticutt. The reply to my letter waas this: "We (The BBB) have not contacted The Hartford because we do not have both parties positions on the matter". Well shucks and gosh almighty! I would hardly expect the BBB to have "both parties" positions on any matter if they do not contact the "other" party. It only makes me wonder if The Hartford name is enough to intimidate the BBB. I now have to put the BBB in the same category as the others who have come out of the woodwork with their responses to this rip off report. Now into the ninth month. No movement or any contact at all from The Great and powerful Hartford. I still have the options of contacting the media. Let's see is that will wake someone up to the fact that the clock is ticking on the count down to litigation.

I filed a complaint with the BBB in Connecticutt. The reply to my letter waas this: "We (The BBB) have not contacted The Hartford because we do not have both parties positions on the matter". Well shucks and gosh almighty! I would hardly expect the BBB to have "both parties" positions on any matter if they do not contact the "other" party. It only makes me wonder if The Hartford name is enough to intimidate the BBB. I now have to put the BBB in the same category as the others who have come out of the woodwork with their responses to this rip off report. Now into the ninth month. No movement or any contact at all from The Great and powerful Hartford. I still have the options of contacting the media. Let's see is that will wake someone up to the fact that the clock is ticking on the count down to litigation.

I filed a complaint with the BBB in Connecticutt. The reply to my letter waas this: "We (The BBB) have not contacted The Hartford because we do not have both parties positions on the matter". Well shucks and gosh almighty! I would hardly expect the BBB to have "both parties" positions on any matter if they do not contact the "other" party. It only makes me wonder if The Hartford name is enough to intimidate the BBB. I now have to put the BBB in the same category as the others who have come out of the woodwork with their responses to this rip off report. Now into the ninth month. No movement or any contact at all from The Great and powerful Hartford. I still have the options of contacting the media. Let's see is that will wake someone up to the fact that the clock is ticking on the count down to litigation.

I filed a complaint with the BBB in Connecticutt. The reply to my letter waas this: "We (The BBB) have not contacted The Hartford because we do not have both parties positions on the matter". Well shucks and gosh almighty! I would hardly expect the BBB to have "both parties" positions on any matter if they do not contact the "other" party. It only makes me wonder if The Hartford name is enough to intimidate the BBB. I now have to put the BBB in the same category as the others who have come out of the woodwork with their responses to this rip off report. Now into the ninth month. No movement or any contact at all from The Great and powerful Hartford. I still have the options of contacting the media. Let's see is that will wake someone up to the fact that the clock is ticking on the count down to litigation.

My complaint against The Hartford has nothing to do with "Deb's" rebuttal. My complaint is on solid ground. I thank the person for giving advice to Deb of Chandler Arizona on what she should have done. However I would appreciate keeping the focus on The Hartford's policy of acting in bad faith, and deceptive practices when they refuse to address a complaint. Anyone who is concerned should call or write The Hartford to let them know of their concerns specific to this thread. I know I am not the only one the Hartford has applied this policy pressure to.

I give up on George. This is too late for Deb, but something to keep in mind for anyone else who has been in a crash with another car. If a ticket is written, it will have a court date on it. Remember that police don't decide who's guilty, courts do. When any ticket is written against you, ALWAYS APPEAR AT COURT. It is likely that the other person, the "witness," and possibly even the police officer will not appear, which means in most cases you can get the case dismissed and YOU WIN AUTOMATICALLY. Even if you were dead to rights at-fault. You have nothing to lose. If you don't go to court, you always lose by default. Of course bring all that you can to support your case. If personal injury is involved, a lawyer may be well worth the cost. If the ticket was not written against you, still APPEAR AT COURT (as a witness against the other guy). This will make sure the other driver is convicted, thus your insurance company won't be so tempted to raise your rates.

You admit in your comments that you were found at fault. You were not able to prove otherwise. The commentary in your response seems to indicate that you were resigned to the outcome of the incident you were involved in. Again, from your comments, it seems that you have never had cause to file for relief from The Hartford for any other reason, other than the auto incident. I am happy that your life experiences have gone well for you. You show an ability to research, so I recommend the Law Library in Downtown Phoenix ( to those who do not know - Chandler Arizona is a very short distance from Downtown Phoenix) There you will get assistance from the excellent librarians to guide you to the volumes to research for precedents. At this point The Hartford is acting in bad faith and deception with regard to my claim for relief. I am taking these steps to attempt to persuade them to address this problem in good faith. Call them, and ask them why they act in bad faith with so many complaints, while they quickly resolve problems such as yours, when you were held at fault. Call them simply to bring their attention to this complaint, perhaps they will address my complaint specifically. Then if they decide to resolve this complaint in good faith, I can return to retract this complaint, and join you in your opinion of them. Your circumstances and mine are totally at different ends of the spectrum.

Hello, I am sorry to hear you have had such a terrible experience with The Hartford. I, on the other hand, have only excellent things to say about The Hartford and feel compelled to respond in their defense. I too live in Arizona. I have been insured by The Hartford for many years (my house, my car, my boats, everything). A couple of years ago, I was involved in a very serious accident with another car. Both my (almost new) vehicle and his older model vehicle were totalled. Who caused the accident was in question, although the police at the scene ruled I was at fault and cited me for failure to yield. The other guy ran the light, but some "witness" said he entered the intersection while it was still yellow, at a high rate of speed. (Interestingly enough I later learned that the other driver was a red-light-bandit with seven red-light violations in the last couple of years) My point here is that The Hartford really, really, really worked with me. And... I really, really, really worked with them. That is probably the ticket to success we worked together. They replaced my vehicle and took care of everything about the other driver's vehicle and his medical expenses. They were polite, respectful, and extremely sensitive to me throughout the entire process, they returned every call I made to them, and called on every occasion they said they would. The wanted me to go to the doctor to be checked even when I said I felt okay. They covered every expense - even postage! Oh, and did I mention that my rates were NOT increased? The list of how great The Hartford was doesn't end here, but I think I made my point. The Hartford is one of the most premier insurance companies out there - if not THE most premier. I would recommend The Hartford to ANYONE. Other than that accident, I have a totally spotless driving record. I have no other accidents and no violations of any sort on my record. Mr. Scot is your driving record clean other than that accident? I am very interested in knowing the specific Arizona court cases that support punitive damage claims that you reference in your complaint. Can you share the case information? I do not mean to be disrespectful, but to be honest with you Mr. Scot, I am not sure I even understand what you think The Hartford owes you. You cannot honestly believe that insurance companies dole out the maximum coverage limit to each person on each incident they report?!?! Can you imagine the fraud that would occur just so people could make $25k on a fender bender? In your letter, you indicated you are of advanced years, so I assume you have been around the block a time or two and understand how insurance works. Also, insurance premiums constantly fluctuate at ALL insurance companies not just The Hartford. There are a lot of reasons for insurance premiums to go up (or down). The increase to your premium may not have had anything to do with your accident. There are several articles on the net that can help shed some light on it for you: http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special37/articles/1218autoinsure18.html I thought this was an interesting comment found at this URL http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2005/10/17/60893.htm Arizona insurers pay $563 more than the national average to cover medical costs due to collisions, Frederikson said. The state also has a higher rate of people claiming to be injured in an accident: 19.5 percent greater than the national average, he said. Frederikson said he suspects that's because Arizonans also like to hire attorneys to represent them in collision claims: 42 percent of Arizonans get a lawyer to represent them, compared with 24 percent nationally.

There seems to be a lot of lawyers making comments here. Some of them who do not have copies of my Hartford policy. It's a pity that some of them try to insult me. If they were to read my complaint carefully, they would realize that (and I quote) that no where in the Hartford policy, does it say UP TO. UP TO anything. However, that is not the point of my complaint. 1. Hartford does not, and will not address the complaint. 2. By not addressing the complaint, they are bent on a course that will force me to litigate the matter. 3. Hartford uses these tactics in their attempt to wear me out. Perhaps the people who have made comments here should call or write to The Hartford and get a copy of my policy. Or they might call and ask them why they do not want to address this problem. They could easily have avoided this complaint had they done so. They could just as easily avoid litigation, which seems inevitable. Keep those rebuttals coming, whatever your opinions are, but let's not make presonal insults govern the content and rob it of intelligent commentary.

My connection to The Hartford? I already stated it--a policyholder for 18 years. I didn't hire an ambulance chasing attorney because I didn't need one. Hartford asked for documentation and I supplied it. How much did I settle for? Exactly what I was entitled to...my medical bills and repair of my automobile. But, of course, I didn't go to the nearest medical supply store to buy a neck brace which I wore each time I stepped out of the house. They're too cumbersome to wear all the time and sometimes a person could slip up when they're taking out 20 pounds of trash and right in front of your house there's an insurance inspector video taping the whole episode. :)

There is one type of coverage and ONLY one type of coverage which could possible pay any pain and suffering settlement to the insured party. This coverage is UM/UIM (Uninsured motorist/Underinsured motorist) The majority of people decline this coverage, and in many states, it STILL does not cover pain and suffering. However, for the purposes of this debate, we will assume that you carry UM/UIM and assume that you can collect pain and suffering from the policy. You stated: (Direct quote) "In my opinion, Hartford has no desire, or intention, to live up to the agreements spelled out in their insurance policies. Policies that show coverage as $25,000.00. Not up to $25,000.00." You also stated: (Direct quote)"In his letter he wants to show THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY, noted in the policy. He perhaps is not aware that the policy is in fact a contract. This Limit Of Liability, only states a condition I agreed to when I purchased the policy. This condition is, as stated in this contract as Coverage is our MAXIMUM limit This does not entitle, by any caveat, Hartford to pay less. There is no caveat anywhere in this policy that allows Hartford to misinterpret any level of diagnosed injury, to mitigate the payment of the MAXIMUM liability. Contracts are the promises you make are the promises you keep." WRONG and WRONG again: Hartford has been kind and thorough enough to make this information readily available to the public through their website, please visit: http://thehartford.com/corporate/pl/auto/learn_more/res_faqs.html#whyuninsured There it states: "Why do I need to buy Uninsured Motorist coverage? Uninsured Motorist coverage protects you and anyone riding in your vehicle if you are involved in an accident with someone who has no insurance. Even if your state requires insurance coverage, there are those who ignore the law. Should you be injured due to someone else's irresponsibility, Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy." Due to your inherent intellectual deficiency, I feel the need to repeat the last line of the above definition 3 more times to make sure you understand: Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy. Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses up to the limit on your policy. Uninsured Motorist will cover your medical expenses UP TO the limit on your policy. Get it George? Key words: UP TO. UP TO the limits on your policy. Think your rates are high now? Can you even imagine what would happen if every insurance company paid out $25,000 to every single jackass who CLAIMED he had a headache or sore ankle after an accident? The insurance company's function is to settle, to evaluate and pay accordingly, to save as much as possible because THOSE COSTS GET PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER. The insurance companies want to keep payouts low, to keep rates low, to obtain higher market shares. They know that smart consumers shop around, and they know that higher rates only decrease their numbers as people go with other carriers. They make most of their profits from the stock market because they invest the premiums, they only raise rates when they are at risk of losing money. There's a TON of competition in the auto insurance industry, have you watched T.V. recently? You can hardly make it through a commercial break without seeing 2 auto insurance commercials. They have every right to evaluate your claim, and negotiate the value of your injuries and pain and suffering. You have the right to take part in these negotiations. They may ask you to see one of their doctors for a second opinion. They will NOT pay out $25,000.00 just because you demand it. You will need to argue your position and provide explaination as to why your pain and suffering is worth the amount that you demand. Remember, you were involved in an auto accident, you DID NOT win the lottery. I can tell you now, if you continue with unreasonable demands, they will not budge from their offer. Give a little to get a little. If you negotiate and are not able to reach an agreement, your recourse is legal action or arbitration. It's a shame that people can just mark up a company's reputation and hit them with BBB reports just because they have overinflated expectations on the value of their claim. Suck it up, cooperate, and prepare to compromise, if you can't find resolution, a third party can decide what your claim is worth in litigation or arbitration. Oh, and since I already know what you're going to say: NO - I AM NOT IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH THE HARTFORD, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN. In fact, I work for a competitor, and participate in litigation AGAINST The Hartford on a regular basis. Good luck in your shameless attempt to loot the system. I assure you, it will be a humbling experience.

Since the other driver didn't have insurance, your insurance company will pay your actual legitimate medical costs, UP TO the policy limit. They of course will pay less than the policy limit if your medical costs are not that high. If you want additional money for "pain and suffering," you will have to sue the other driver, the one who caused said pain and suffering. Once you send a company a letter where you threaten to sue them, they become defensive in anticipation of the suit. They are unlikely to do you any favors now.

Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured. My report is an attempt to bring Hartford to stop acting in bad faith. To stop the deception. My report is the third part of trying to resolve this issue. (1) By filing the original report (2) By mailing a letter to them. (3) By making a complaint through the Better Business Bureau (4) By filing this report on this web site. None of these has prompted Hartford to resolve this issue. Neither did you mention how you are connected to The Hartford. If your statement is true and you were a victim of a rear end collison, you did not mention if you had an ambulance chasing attorny representing you to settle for the paltry sum that you got after the attorney's fee and the medical expenses were deducted. How much did you settle for?

Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured. My report is an attempt to bring Hartford to stop acting in bad faith. To stop the deception. My report is the third part of trying to resolve this issue. (1) By filing the original report (2) By mailing a letter to them. (3) By making a complaint through the Better Business Bureau (4) By filing this report on this web site. None of these has prompted Hartford to resolve this issue. Neither did you mention how you are connected to The Hartford. If your statement is true and you were a victim of a rear end collison, you did not mention if you had an ambulance chasing attorny representing you to settle for the paltry sum that you got after the attorney's fee and the medical expenses were deducted. How much did you settle for?

Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured. My report is an attempt to bring Hartford to stop acting in bad faith. To stop the deception. My report is the third part of trying to resolve this issue. (1) By filing the original report (2) By mailing a letter to them. (3) By making a complaint through the Better Business Bureau (4) By filing this report on this web site. None of these has prompted Hartford to resolve this issue. Neither did you mention how you are connected to The Hartford. If your statement is true and you were a victim of a rear end collison, you did not mention if you had an ambulance chasing attorny representing you to settle for the paltry sum that you got after the attorney's fee and the medical expenses were deducted. How much did you settle for?

Your rebuttal forgets to mention that you were hit by an "insured" motorist. Hartford only deals with the other party if the other party is insured. My report is an attempt to bring Hartford to stop acting in bad faith. To stop the deception. My report is the third part of trying to resolve this issue. (1) By filing the original report (2) By mailing a letter to them. (3) By making a complaint through the Better Business Bureau (4) By filing this report on this web site. None of these has prompted Hartford to resolve this issue. Neither did you mention how you are connected to The Hartford. If your statement is true and you were a victim of a rear end collison, you did not mention if you had an ambulance chasing attorny representing you to settle for the paltry sum that you got after the attorney's fee and the medical expenses were deducted. How much did you settle for?

Someone please get the violins out. I've been a Hartford client for 18 years. About 5 years ago the exact same thing happened to me--I was rear ended while being stopped at a traffic light. Hartford merely required my accident report and a copy of the police report. They took it from there. My hospital visit and all medical bills were covered and they dealt with the party who hit me. I had practically nothing to do with the claim. Of course there may have been one slight difference in my accident and George's--I wasn't out to get a windfall from Hartford due to 'perceived' injuries sustained in the accident. Get a life, George. It's pretty obvious what you're trying to do.

Updated 11/04/05 at 8.19Pm arizona time. Phoenix Arizona, March 4th/2005 at approximately 1 PM Arizona time.The location was the intersection of Bethany Home Road and 7th street. While in my vehicle, facing west, completely stopped at the red traffic light, Mrs. Rosemary Johnson, driving her red 2001 Mitsubishi, at a high rate of speed, collided with my vehicle in a rear end collision. Repeat, I was completely stopped. Mrs. Rosemary Johnson was cited by the Phoenix Police for not having proof of insurance and also for not controlling her rate of speed. The Phoenix Police determined that Rosemary Johnson was entirely at fault. Subsequently, the injuries I sustained as a result of this collision, were diagnosed as severe in certain aspects regarding whiplash and additionally moderately severe in other areas. The medical professionals also cautioned that complete recovery may take considerable time due to my advanced years. Hartford saw fit to victimize me, the victim, by raising my insurance premiums, when I was not held at fault. Hartford, through an affiliate office in Reno Nevada, has engaged in bad faith practices, in dealing with my claim. Harford, through this Reno office engages in consumer deception, even to the point of consumer fraud. If I am forced to litigate this claim I will, most certainly, petition the court for punitive damages, with respect to consumer deception, and perhaps consumer fraud. There are precedents in court cases in Arizona, to support punitive damage claims. Hartford's web site attempts to paint a glowing impression of a company with a reputation of honesty and responsibility, claiming having paid in full, the claims resulting from the fire in Chicago in 1871. That was then. What is now? The Hartford web site attempts to explain Insurance fraud, as follows. Insurance fraud is a deliberate deception, perpetrated against honest, unsuspecting people, for financial gain. Just who were they referring to as the perpetrators, and who are the honest, unsuspecting people? In my opinion, Hartford has no desire, or intention, to live up to the agreements spelled out in their insurance policies. Policies that show coverage as $25,000.00. Not up to $25,000.00. Then through another branch attempt to deceive the public that they are an honest and honorable company. They keep the deceptive and bad faith bargaining at longer than arms length, in their attempt not to tarnish the P.R. image they present on television. It is all about numbers. All about revenue. All about the bottom line. From the Chairman on down. This numbers philosophy has been witnessed, and well publicly revealed in the media, with reference to Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, Adelphi and others. The deception and corruption that slimed out. I must ask myself, is Hartford suffering from the same cancer of corruption? I must ask myself, what are my options? Certainly, litigation is one. This complaint to the Better Business Bureau, is one. Already done as of this writing. Certainly there are internet web sites, such as Bad Business Bureau that get millions of hits, which would provide an option. Being done now at this writing. There are many, many internet blogging web sites, which may add another option to my presenting my complaint to Hartford, through the internet public. The Hartford policy does not distinguish any levels of injury. It does not say, a broken finger does not constitute coverage of $25,000.00. As previously stated it does not say coverage is up to $25,000.00. Should I be forced to litigate this matter, I would take it under advisement whether I should name Hartford as the defendant, since it is Hartford that issued the policy. Does Hartford want to be honorable? Do they want to order Sentinel to settle this claim for the full amount? Does Hartford want to instruct Sentinel to avoid litigation? Does Hartford care one iota what I do. Does Hartford believe that I am too insignificant? This ends the original letter. I mailed a copy of the above letter, to The Hartford, Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Ct 06115. I addressed the envelope to the above address and marked it to the attention of the Chairman/CEO Ramani Ayer. Realistically, I did not entertain the hope that my complaint would reach his attention. In fact I received the letter of response that I expected. A Pavlovian conditioned response from someone in, so called, customer service. This person identified himself as Mr Pat DeFrancesco, Director of Customer Relations Department. His letter, acknowledged receipt of my complaint. His letter continues to prove the system of how Hartford will not address serious complaints, by shuffling them off to (and I quote) I am directing this complaint to the area of the company responsible for its resolution, and asking the personnel in that area to respond directly to you. (unquote). He concludes by stating (quote) The Hartford is committed to customer satisfaction and takes its responsibility to its customers very seriously. The Hartford makes every effort to satisfactorily resolve all issues in the most expeditious manner.(unquote) If he was so dedicated to making every effort to satisfactorily resolve all issues in the most expeditious manner why did he shirk the responsibility, putting it in his out tray, which is the same as his circular file. Deceptively, he does not mention who or what the area is that he will pass the buck to. The consumer deception continues, in the fact that my complaint was returned to the source of my complaint. Namely the bad faith and consumer deceptive practices of a Hartford company in Reno Nevada. This action simply fortifies my complaint of bad faith and consumer deception. This action of someone who has a title of Director, begs these questions. Does he have any delegated authority to actually begin the process of resolving this issue? Is this, pass the buck action, what Hartford employs as the most expeditious manner under standard operational procedures? Why did he pass the buck instead of taking it to a higher authority, if he was so concerned about customer satisfaction? Ultimately Hartford prefers litigation to resolution. However, Hartford chooses to ignore the options that I referred to in my original letter to their Hartford Plaza office. Let's examine those options and others that I did not mention in the original letter. First was the actual letter, to which I received the expected response. From that response I now I have further documentation that supports my claim. Second, filing the continuation of this complaint with the Better Business Bureau, as will be evidenced by the receipt of this, now filed with The Better Business Bureau. Following a natural course of action, If Hartford continues its bad faith and consumer deceptive practices, the third option open to me would be to file this same complaint with the Bad Business Bureau on the internet. Plus other web sites of the same nature. The Bad Business Bureau web site logs many rip-off complaints against The Hartford going back to January of 2002, and probably before that. Not previously mentioned are the possibility that television media may well be approached, Stone Phillips of Dateline and of course Sixty Minutes, may or may not prove to be an option worth exploring, as a fourth option. There is the Local Television media as a fifth option, may well be worth exploring. Sixth is the ever present print media. Who knows how many disgruntled, former Hartford customers, will surface. Then the final option of litigation, with all the ramifications of discovery rule. Naturally I will not delay in pursuing all of these options. They will occur systematically in a very short period of time, partly with the objective of seeking evidence of the same or similar treatment of individuals by The Hartford and any of The Hartford companies. I will now proceed to answer a letter from (as it was described) the area of the company responsible for its resolution, from a Mark Magid, SCLA. A claims supervisor of the Reno office. Regarding Rosemary Johnson colliding with the rear of my vehicle, while my vehicle was stationary. In the first paragraph of his letter it is falsely stated that the collision speed was 10MPH I have a written statement in Rosemary Johnson's handwriting, that she was traveling at 35MPH, that will be submitted in the process of litigation. The Police report also shows that Rosemary Johnson was cited for failure to control her speed, resulting in her being held entirely responsible for the rear end collision. In the second paragraph it states that I claimed to have possibly lost consciousness for a second. This is also a deliberately false interpretation of what I said. In fact, I was rendered unconscious. In fact I said that I had no idea how long that condition lasted. Being in a state of unconsciousness, no one can determine how long that condition lasted. The Mark Magid letter describes only a few of the minor injuries, while deliberately disregarding the more serious conditions. Namely the injury to the back of my head as I reported it to the paramedics. And the fact that I was unable to retain food. These symptoms strongly indicate concussion. These symptoms of concussion are again mentioned in the third paragraph of his letter. After one visit to Classical Physical Therapy, my condition deteriorated gravely. As a result I determined that I should be under the care of a Medical Doctor. The letter, falsely and deceptively, attempts to portray levels of pain on the following scale. A 4 out of 10 level, improvement from a 10 out of 10. A 10 out of 10 level of pain would indicate severe pain. The above information, that they have deliberately misconstrued, more than likely did not come from any diagnostic report written by Classical Physical Therapy. In the fourth paragraph of his letter, there is another deliberate attempt to minimize the fact that I sought the services of a Medical Doctor, namely Rupal Mohan MD. It is false that when I was released that I had no more headaches. My headaches were severe and continuous at the beginning of my treatment at Regent Medical Inc. My headaches were less often but equally severe when they did arise, at the time of my release. I was released at my request. Sentinel fails to recognize that Doctor Mohan diagnosed my injuries to the left side of my neck as severe. The injuries to the right side of my neck as moderately severe. Upon my release I still had to be careful of dizzy spells. To this day I still suffered from headaches. I was cautioned by the Doctor that I should continue with the exercises prescribed by them. I was further cautioned that a relapse was more than a likely event. I was further cautioned that complete recovery was indeed a long way ahead in the future. At this writing, I have not yet recovered. An examination by a Medical Doctor will show that the injuries to my neck persist. Causing continual discomfort and even pain when sudden movement happens. This condition still exists now going into eight months. This claims supervisor somehow seems to think in terms of television court drama. In his letter he wants to show THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY, noted in the policy. He perhaps is not aware that the policy is in fact a contract. This Limit Of Liability, only states a condition I agreed to when I purchased the policy. This condition is, as stated in this contract as Coverage is our MAXIMUM limit This does not entitle, by any caveat, Hartford to pay less. There is no caveat anywhere in this policy that allows Hartford to misinterpret any level of diagnosed injury, to mitigate the payment of the MAXIMUM liability. Contracts are the promises you make are the promises you keep. Only by the bad faith and consumer deceptive practices of Hartford for many years has created a corrupt cancer within the Hartford companies, that makes them think that they are entitled to deceive the consumer. They succeed against low income people, knowing that low income people do not have the experience, the fortitude to stand against this reprehensible behavior, and obviously low income people mostly cannot afford the time off work to enter into litigation. They do it because they get away with it. They will continue to do it as long as they get away with it. This claims supervisor goes on to quote the ARBITRATION clause in the Hartford policy. He should be reminded, daily on an hourly basis, that Arbitration only occurs when BOTH parties agree. Clearly stated in the policy. I informed the Reno office very early in their bad faith negotiations, through the Attorney who was representing me at that time, that ARBITRATION would never be considered. This claims supervisor's interpretation of the LANGUAGE is correct when he states the Coverage is the Maximum we (meaning Hartford) pay. The sentence that follows that particular statement will enhance my law suit, which seems inevitable. The following sentence is repeated verbatim. (Quote Mark Magid) It does not mean that we will pay this amount just because you were injured in an accident with an Uninsured Motorist. (unquote) JUST BECAUSE?? Just because I am a bump on a log?? Just because I am a customer of Hartford?? Just because it is the policy of Hartford and all Hartford Companies to deceive the consumer and bargain and act in bad faith. In reference to The Hartford's latest television P.R. promotions claiming A hundred and ninety four years of trust. A hundred and ninety four years of trust? My foot. I fully expect people with close ties to The Hartford, to attempt to defend their reprehensible conduct, as they follow the path of policy procedures, intentionally dedicated to frustrating any resolution, that is not on their terms. Terms that serve only to continue to deceive. It is all about revenue. It is all about the bottom line. This numbers crunching cancer is from the top on down. Bottom line numbers that result in unbelievably enormous bonuses, at the expense of their customers. Following the Mark Magid TV drama thought trend, this may play out in the best traditions of snake oil sales and shell game manipulators. I wonder if it is true that what goes around comes around. Pyramid schemes always fail. Corporate self denial of greed, was the corruption that led to the demise of Enron, Tyco, and others of the same ilk.