This article explains a lot. Somewhere along the way the CT DOI decided it was going to strong arm carriers into paying claims with dipsuted liability. Clearly their sole motivation is beating the last quarters results for “recoveries”. Their tactics have gotten completely out of hand and they have essentially stepped into the role of judge and jury denying carriers the right to defend their insured’s at the risk of receiving a justified complaint finding. What they don’t realize is that while they are “recovering” money for some (most of whom don’t deserve it) they are harming other consumers who now have at fault losses on their driving history.
Claim-G- I suggest you re-read the article. Almost all of the recoveries come from health insurance compliants, with a distant second from life insurance complaints. P&C complaints and recoveries is a far, far distant 3rd. This has nothing to do with intimidating casualty carriers to pay for questionable liability auto accidents, but everything to do with getting health insurance carriers to cover health clams they should not have denied.
In MN, the Dept. is so inept that P & C Co.’s can change their quote’s weeks after being ‘sold’ to client’s with apparent immunity !!
When the regulator’s don’t regulate — as we have recently discovered– we end up with major problems.
My ex husband was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 9/24/2008. He left a $300,000 accidental death policy to our son, Chip Shelly. To date the Hartford Co. has not attempted to settle this policy. My son was determined the beneficiary of the policy and the death was accidental, but still no settlement of this claim. On further inquiry into the policy, the benefit was deemed to be changed from the original $100,000 which clearly showed my son as the beneficiary, to the now $300,000. My husband did not change the beneficiary, the policy remained the same policy with the same number. Hartford stated that the benefit must be paid to all children since no new beneficiary was designated. Why is a new beneficiary required when the policy was not changed? My son then included his sister, Melanie Shelly as a beneficiary. The last we heard, two weeks ago, the request was made of the state medical examiner of a statement of cause of death and payment was made to him for his statement. That is only one of the dozen or so excuses why Hartford does not settle this claim. Our daughter, Melanie, is developmentally disabled and my husband and I had discussed who would be beneficiary/ies and decided that Chip would be the only person who could benefit. Receiving an amount this size would be detrimental to our daughter as she has many, many medical expenses incurred each month and would then be responsible for paying all of them. We could not justify taking this away from Chip, who very much needs the benefits to support his family of six.
I am asking please contact Hartford in your state and request an immediate settlement of this policy. Melanie is immediately signing her portion of the benefit to her brother, Chip, as soon as it is received. Our son, Chip, is a responsible man with a good supervisory position in a good company. He does need a larger home for their four growing boys, who now share two small bedrooms. This causes a good deal of friction in the home.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This article explains a lot. Somewhere along the way the CT DOI decided it was going to strong arm carriers into paying claims with dipsuted liability. Clearly their sole motivation is beating the last quarters results for “recoveries”. Their tactics have gotten completely out of hand and they have essentially stepped into the role of judge and jury denying carriers the right to defend their insured’s at the risk of receiving a justified complaint finding. What they don’t realize is that while they are “recovering” money for some (most of whom don’t deserve it) they are harming other consumers who now have at fault losses on their driving history.
Claim-G- I suggest you re-read the article. Almost all of the recoveries come from health insurance compliants, with a distant second from life insurance complaints. P&C complaints and recoveries is a far, far distant 3rd. This has nothing to do with intimidating casualty carriers to pay for questionable liability auto accidents, but everything to do with getting health insurance carriers to cover health clams they should not have denied.
In MN, the Dept. is so inept that P & C Co.’s can change their quote’s weeks after being ‘sold’ to client’s with apparent immunity !!
When the regulator’s don’t regulate — as we have recently discovered– we end up with major problems.
My ex husband was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 9/24/2008. He left a $300,000 accidental death policy to our son, Chip Shelly. To date the Hartford Co. has not attempted to settle this policy. My son was determined the beneficiary of the policy and the death was accidental, but still no settlement of this claim. On further inquiry into the policy, the benefit was deemed to be changed from the original $100,000 which clearly showed my son as the beneficiary, to the now $300,000. My husband did not change the beneficiary, the policy remained the same policy with the same number. Hartford stated that the benefit must be paid to all children since no new beneficiary was designated. Why is a new beneficiary required when the policy was not changed? My son then included his sister, Melanie Shelly as a beneficiary. The last we heard, two weeks ago, the request was made of the state medical examiner of a statement of cause of death and payment was made to him for his statement. That is only one of the dozen or so excuses why Hartford does not settle this claim. Our daughter, Melanie, is developmentally disabled and my husband and I had discussed who would be beneficiary/ies and decided that Chip would be the only person who could benefit. Receiving an amount this size would be detrimental to our daughter as she has many, many medical expenses incurred each month and would then be responsible for paying all of them. We could not justify taking this away from Chip, who very much needs the benefits to support his family of six.
I am asking please contact Hartford in your state and request an immediate settlement of this policy. Melanie is immediately signing her portion of the benefit to her brother, Chip, as soon as it is received. Our son, Chip, is a responsible man with a good supervisory position in a good company. He does need a larger home for their four growing boys, who now share two small bedrooms. This causes a good deal of friction in the home.