May 17, 2005
On or about May 14, 2005 I received a Notice of Non-Renewal from Founders Insurance Company. My policy with Founders will terminate on July 9, 2005. I am not sure if this means I will not have Northwest Insurance as an agent. I will have to contact them to find out. Nevertheless, I believe this may be a social policy issue. I had one vehicle involved in a car accident that may have been my daughter’s fault. The other car accidents are clearly the fault of others. Yet, auto insurance companies hold the policy holders at fault for accidents that are not their fault. We, the people, need to speak to our State Senators and Representatives who sponsor bills for new auto insurance policies to hold those who are really at fault responsible for their actions. Please read the following letters written about my auto insurance issues and how they were handled. You can also visit my website, http://www.clickservices.org/, for further review and discussion.
Thank you.
Fred Nance Jr.
April 12, 2005
Mr. Martin Joseph, President & Secretary Founders Insurance Company
330 So. Wells Street, 16th Floor Ms. Jane Abed, President
Chicago, Illinois 60606-7161 1645 E. Birchwood Ave.
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Mr. Barry A. Feinberg, Registered Agent
30 So. Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Re: Founders Policy & Northwest Insurance Network, Inc.
Gentlemen:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this letter complaining about the service I am receiving from Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. I am feeling and it appears that I am being victimized leading to termination of auto insurance and/or higher insurance rates. Presently, my complaint involves a rental reimbursement check for $300.00 for a rental car.
On April 11, 2005 I received this check unsigned from Eva in the amount of $300.00. I called about 7 times leaving messages for Ms. Laura Rivera. I had to call back, the 7th time, to get Ms. Rivera. When talking to Ms. Rivera I informed her that I had driven 50 miles (round trip) from my home in the rush hour traffic to pick up this check that Eva called me on Saturday, April 9, 2005, reporting that it was ready for pick up or mailing. I informed Eva at this time that I would pick the check up on Monday, April 11, 2005.
Ms. Rivera gave defenses to me for Eva’s negligence in assuring that the check was signed. Ms. Rivera and I talked about the issue possibly resolving it with her suggesting that I could come in and the person who signs checks may be able to sign it or I may be issued another check. Ms. Rivera also suggested I fax in a copy of the check (I will fax a copy of this letter and the unsigned check today, April 12, 2005 to Ms. Rivera).
On April 12, 2005 I called Ms. Rivera stating that I would be in on Thursday, April 14, 2005, to pick up my rental reimbursement check. Ms. Rivera made me feel like I was responsible for the error suggesting I bring in the “unsigned check” to get it signed. From our previous conversations, Ms. Rivera and I, this seems to be burden for me.
I asked Ms. Rivera if I could speak to her supervisor. Ms. Rivera stated that she does not have a supervisor and that she has been with the company for 25 years. So, what does this mean? This statement informs me that her decisions are final. That she has so much autonomy that there is no regulating her actions or positions taken; that she has no boss and is not accountable to anyone. I asked Ms. Rivera for the President & CEO’s name and address stating that I would write a letter to him/her reporting my issues. Ms. Rivera stated that she is not allowed to give a customer that information. I asked to speak another supervisor or manager.
A male came on the phone, giving the name Richard, stating he was a supervisor on staff. I asked him for the President & CEO’s name and address. He refused to give information on the names or addresses. I asked Richard who governs their company. He reported the Department of Insurance. I informed him that I would contact them to get the information.
I called the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Insurance. They suggested I call the Illinois Secretary of State, Corporation Unit. The Corporations Unit reports that Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. is a Domestic Corporation. The Corporation Unit reports Barry A. Feinberg, as the Registered Agent; and Martin Joseph as the President and Secretary.
History with Northwest Insurance Network, Inc.
I engaged in auto insurance with this company and Founders Insurance in or about July 2004. I insured three (3) cars, that is, 1997 Mercury, 1998 Nissan Altima, and a 2003 Toyota Corolla. Mr. Steve Petro was my first agent. I requested full coverage auto insurance. I did not know until recently, when Founders informed me, that I did not have Med Pay. How can a person have full coverage without having Med Pay? As a layman, I did not know about Med Pay until recently. This should have been offered or included.
My first engagement with unsatisfactory service was when Mr. Petro suggested I had to insure my daughter, who did not live in my household. I reported to him that I did not have to insure anyone who did not live at my address. I had a lot of trouble with Founders Insurance because of this issue. My daughter Randi Nance had an accident in the Mercury, where she may be the responsible party. This happened in Posen. No tickets were given (letter written to Posen Police Department attached).
Most recently, the Nissan has been in an accident and the Toyota (written documentation attached). The Toyota was also hit on the passenger side, reported to Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. and Founders, by a hit and run driver who had a stolen car (reported to Northwest and Founders). My wife, Darlene Nance, and myself were not responsible for these accidents, yet we will be held accountable because our insurance rates will go up because of them or Northwest will decide to drop us to punish us, possibly for reporting these issues.
We feel victimized, notwithstanding the issue presented today of the “unsigned” rental reimbursement check. Why is the consumer or the one “not-at-fault” victimized by events such as reported here? Please acknowledge receipt and respond. I will fax these letters to Mr. Barry A. Feinberg, Mr. Martin Joseph, Ms. Jane Abed, Ms. Laura Rivera, and my present agent, Mr. William Montgomery (bringing him up-to-date with my issues); additionally mailing hard copies to Mr. Feinberg and hand-delivering to Mr. Joseph, hand-delivering to Ms. Rivera on Thursday, April 14, 2005 and hand-delivering to Mr. Montgomery on Tuesday, April 12, 2005. In addition, I will fax electronic copies and mail hard to Founders Insurance Company.
Founders Insurance has a copy of the police report and statements for the hit-and-run accident with the stolen car involving the Toyota in August 2004. I do not have the claim number for the August 2004 accident. Regarding the August 2004 claim for the Mercury; Nissan claim; and the Toyota claim.
August 21, 2004
Founders Insurance Company
Ms. Shepherd:
On August 12, 2004 at approximately 6:00 pm my daughter, Randi Nance, was involved in a traffic accident at 147th & Troy. My daughter asked to use my car earlier that day. I, Fred Nance Jr., granted that request.
From talking to Ms. Shepherd, it appears that Randi’s residency is in question regarding this accident and my insurance. First, I will address Randi’s residency. Second, I will address my agent, Steve Petro, who works for Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. Third, I will briefly address the incorrect information on the Illinois Motorist Report issued by the Posen police department, attaching the letter I wrote to the Posen police department, requesting they correct, among other things, the report.
Regarding who should be listed on an insured person’s automobile policy: Illinois law suggests that all individuals with a valid drivers license living in the same household must be listed on the automobile insurance. For the purpose of automobile insurance as related to this issue, a person’s drivers license suggest where the person lives. Randi does not live at 17239 Evans Ave., South Holland, Illinois, 60473. Randi lives at 7344 South Maplewood Ave., Chicago, Illinois, 60629 (drivers license/ticket attached). I, Fred Nance Jr. and Darlene Bouyer-Nance, licensed drivers, live at 17239 South Evans Avenue, South Holland, Illinois, 60473.
Randi was born July 19, 1984. She is 20-years-old. When Randi became 18-years-old she moved to 7344 South Maplewood, Chicago, Illinois, 60629. Because she is my youngest daughter I have always had her on my insurance policy. I did not know because she did not live in my house I did not have to list her on my policy to be an occasional driver.
Randi is considered an occasional driver. She does not drive my cars on a regular basis. Randi has always been an occasional driver. On or about July 8, 2004, I entered into an automobile insurance arrangement with Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. The agent assigned to my case with Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. is Steve Petro. I listed and gave information to Steve Petro stating that Fred Nance Jr. and Darlene Bouyer-Nance would be regular drivers, and Randi Nance would be an occasional driver.
A colleague of mine introduced me to Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. When I obtained the insurance, I told him about my policy. He asked me why was I listing my daughter, Randi, on my insurance policy when she did not live in my house. He told me about the Illinois law suggested above. He told me to contact my agent and remove Randi from my policy as a person living in my household. He said this would reduce my payments.
On or about August 4, 2004 I contacted my agent with Northwest Insurance Network, Inc., Steve Petro, and told him I wanted to take Randi off my policy because she did not live at my address. I personally gave/submitted Randi’s drivers license/ticket to Steve as proof of residency. Steve accepted the drivers license/ticket as Randi’s proof of residency. I told Steve she would still drive the car as an occasional driver. Steve agreed.
On August 12, 2004, when I brought Randi back to my house, I had mail from Northwest Insurance Network, Inc. In this mail I received new insurance cards, which excluded Randi from driving any of my three (3) cars. I was livid. I never told Steve to exclude Randi from driving my cars. I told Steve to take Randi off my insurance policy as a person living in my household. I called my agent, Steve Petro, to report the accident and to discuss the insurance cards, but did not get an answer.
On August 13, 2004 at approximately 9:30 am, I called Steve from my cell phone. I have his number listed on my cell phone bill for this time period. I reported the accident to him and asked him why he listed Randi as an excluded driver. He told me that I requested she be taken off of my insurance. I agreed with him, but I told him I did not tell him to exclude her from driving my cars. I told him that we agreed she would still be an occasional driver. I asked him what was he going to do about this issue, and how do I explain this issue. Steve told me to give him a couple of days to look into this issue before I report the accident and he will get back to me. I did not understand the statement about reporting the accident, because I was reporting the accident to him. I hung up.
I left town on August 13, 2004 right after that conversation with Steve. When I returned on August 17, 2004 I called Steve because he had not contacted me. I asked him what had he done to resolve the issue. Steve told me that I had to contact Founders Insurance Company, report the accident, and discuss the issue with them. I was livid.
I told Steve “not only am I five (5) days late reporting the accident, but you expect me to articulate insurance related language to Founders when you should be talking to Founders because it was your error.” Steve told me that I would have to talk to Founders to see if they would honor “our” (Steve and I) agreement of Randi being an occasional driver. I called and began dialogue with Ms. Shepherd about this issue.
Therefore, I suggest that my agent Steve Petro did not honor my request to take my daughter Randi Nance off of my automobile insurance policy to lower my payments because she did not live in my household. Instead, he excluded her from my automobile policy. I did not request an exclusion.
I believe I have the privilege of letting a licensed driver drive my car as an occasional driver. If any of my three (3) daughters (including Randi) requested to use my car, I would let them. My oldest two (2) daughters do not live with me as Randi does not live with me. If I wanted too, I would let my mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, or neighbors drive my car as an occasional driver. The blame for this issue should lie with the person who re-wrote the policy incorrectly, Steve Petro.
Now therefore, I respectfully request the following relief: a) that Founders Insurance Company provide the coverage for my automobile due to my daughter Randi Nance being an occasional driver not living in my household, b) issue corrected automobile insurance cards without any exclusions or restrictions to occasional drivers, and c) whatever other relief Founders deems necessary and appropriate for me and Northwest Insurance Network, Inc.
In addition, I am sending you the Illinois Motorist Report of August 12, 2004, and the letter I wrote to the Posen police department who came to scene of the accident. This letter addresses, in part, the way the report was written. The report has the wrong automobile insurance and the wrong address for Randi Nance. The Posen police department used my old American Family Insurance card to report information. As you can see from the attached drivers license/ticket of Randi, the Posen police department did not report Randi’s address from the drivers license/ticket. They reported my, Fred Nance Jr., address from the old American Family insurance card, which they recovered from the glove compartment of the car. My insurance card from Founders was right next to the old American Family insurance cards.
April 10, 2005
Founders Insurance Company
Auto Claims Division
Re: Founders Claim
Mr. Carole Carter:
The following is an account of the accident involving the Founders’ insured Toyota Corolla on April 2, 2005. According to the police report taken on April 2, 2005, Unit 1 is the van and Unit 2 is the Toyota Corolla.
On April 2, 2005 Unit 2 traveled North on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago and exited at 39th street. Unit 2 turned right and proceeded East on 39th street. As Unit 2 crossed State Street and approached her employers’ parking lot (Dawson Skills Center housing Centers for New Horizons Day Care Program), she put her right turn signal on to pull into the lot. As Unit 2 began to turn, Unit 1 came up on Unit 2’s passenger side and hit the Toyota’s front passenger side door denting it and knocking the mirror out.
Unit 1 was not behind or following Unit 2 from the Dan Ryan Expressway. Unit 1 must have come up behind Unit 2 from traveling North or South on State Street before it turned onto 39th Street going East behind Unit 2. Unit 2 had crossed State Street on 39th Street going East in the outside lane.
On 39th Street going East crossing State Street there are two lanes of highway. Approximately15 to 20 feet from State Street on 39th street going East there are “L” tracks (the Green Line) going North and South. These “L” tracks are supported by concrete and steel beams. The beam that supports the “L” tracks at this accident site takes out about ½ of the inside lane of this two lane highway. The Dawson Skills Center’s employee parking lot’s entrance is about 5 feet past the beam that supports the “L” tracks.
Therefore, any auto traveling East of State Street on 39th Street must merge. Unit 2 had its right turn signal on as it passed the intersection of State Street and 39th Street traveling East. Unit 1 did not “yield the right of way” to Unit 2.
Unit 2 called 911 twice before they sent the police. The first time Unit 2 called 911, 911 informed Unit 2 to trade information with Unit 1 and proceed to the nearest police station. The 911 operator hung up. Unit 2 called again and informed 911 that there were 3 males in the van, and that Unit 2’s driver was by herself and needed a police officer to come to the scene of the accident because all 3 males had exited the van. A police officer in a “white shirt” came to the accident site and instructed both drivers to go to the 51st Street police station. Unit 2 went to the 51st Street police station and gave information about the accident. Unit 1 did not show up. The 51st Street police that took the information from Unit 2 and stated that Unit 1 was considered as a “hit-and-run.”
Wherefore, it is the hope of Unit 2 that this explanation affords Unit 2 “no fault” in this accident. It is clear that total responsibility for this accident is Unit 1 or the “L” structure. In any case, Unit 2 respectfully request its “deductible” of $500.00 for repairs to the Toyota when Founders’ collects its total debt on this accident from the responsible party(s).
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance
cc: Illinois Department of Transportation
Mr. Don DeGraff, Mayor of South Holland Mr. Warren Millsaps
Mr. Hollis Dorrough, Deputy Chief Mr. Barak Obama
