California Casualty (Mark Barteld) A+ insurance Dropped my Coverage after filing a claim Internet

Thank you for some backround on this particular engineering firm too your the second so far I have come across as another poster shares a few things on Donan engineering on that thread as well.

I check rip off report before I would ever check BBB for complaints, and specifically because the complaints dont "dissapear here" (as they seem to over there).

 So I was just looking around here on rip off this evening after reading a mail from one of Builders mutual's adjusters assigned to us letting me know  which engineering firm they will likely be using.

 Just a few days ago the adjuster (Mr greenup) of diversified claims writes concerning the same

 " The engineer we assign will likely be from Donan Engineering which is a very large firm that can easily be researched.  We do not know who the engineer will be until assigned so I can’t give any personal information as to who it is.  They will definitely be a structural engineer."

 (Me again) and basically because I now paranoid as to who is coming onto my premises, and have now been asking for certificatiions/documentations, licenses and some form of Photo identification which is far easier to obtain before the fact then after it, because I cant get these from Home depot,

But I dont believe the man (who they call Andres Gonzales) was the man they are saying was in charge over at my house . Because I can identify the man who was here (as can my husband) and we know his name is Billy, and his name was Billy through all 4 contracts, and all repairs, and he was in charge of all the men who could not speak English on my roof.

We feel there is something else going on here because he (Billy) has now "dissapeared" (he is not being aknowledged now) while I (a disabled veteran) am being passed from one insurance company to another, being given the run around and they come here "bring in their adjusters, and one was downright nasty to me at one point" telling me that if I took this to court I would be creamed etc and then snaps back into himself (he was like jkll and hyde. But after he left Blairs company somehow figured out it was not their insured (who at that time was this Ricky Slayer guy) and that somehow this guy in NC bought the contact to do my roof in SC and then hired out another subcontractor named Andres who never introduced himself to me. So I was passed to another insurance who supposedly insures this other guy I just cant acknowledge.

I went from Home depot's Mr Kaplan at Sedgwick's to Ellen Best at Blairs and company (and their adjuster) and now Kim Allen and Builders mutual (and their adjuster now, along with a likely Donan structural engineering) as he writes. The last two names of Ricky Slayer and Andres Gonzales I dont reccognize, and I was never introduced to any man in charge here with that name.

But now I am being put under this ghost (and introducing this so late). And they are putting that man as being here (in my home) as the one in charge (but wont provide me any kind of valid photo ID) because I could identify him by sight and I never met this Andres fella, and something in this really stinks .

Then I satrted reading on this thing going on with contractors which is called "aiding and abetting the unlicensed" and I keep being referred to the two licenses (SC & NC) of THD (who the contract states installed it) and the same is listed on my 4 contracts. But what I am wondering is if this could also provide cover to do what is being done, and somehow demonstrate what I have been looking into regarding this. And because no matter how much I ask for the 5 non English speaking mens licenses, the contractors that actually worked on my roof they ignore the question or will say they answered me in pointing me (time and again) to what one might be able to consider two umbrella licenses where such "aiding and abetting" of the unlicensed could occur and here in SC we have an epidemic of unlicenced and uninsured contractors, although Ellen Fox of Home depot corporate stated they are all licenses and insured, I shot back the case of an elderly woman (72 years of age) Joan Binmore in St Petes Beach Florida, she thought the contractor that installed the roof over her house was insured (as Home depot advertises they are). So thats not always true, and I received no answer back after I put forth Joan Binmore as an example. Her damages and costs were nearly $100,000 and she shares (distreesingly so) her story of being given the run around, and court dates postponed and what you will go through if you chose going through a roof install with these people and they make a mistake (and small ones can be costly ones) especially the way they handle them. So whether they duped her into thinking they had insurance (and they didnt) or whether they "supposedly do" it seems you get the same treatment. And I am not convinced that something more isnt going on here but either way the customer really suffers, whoever you are, whether a person who just worked hard and felt it made a difference that their contractors were, legal, licensed, insured, and skilled or whether you are elderly (who the burden can be harder upon) even disabled veterans too, and because they seem to take delight in all of this or something. Thats how it comes off anyway.

The whole industry is corrupt and I am so thankful for Ed's site and that he doesnt remove posts for these corporations but leaves them up for transparency, because we all know (even by looking at the state of our nation what a lack of transparency does). And folks will flee if they think someone will deal dishonestly with them and their hardworking money (and thats good for many more) that read here, they might do any of us in the dishonest ways they do that, and save a handful of dollars leaving you in the mud but so many more will behold that doing and they do pay (either way) Their fault is always looking at the bottom line (on paper) verses not projecting what is walking away (and will never make it to paper) to see that bottom line. And by the time they start looking up, it will take more then just one response on a forum like this to do right by customers. 

 For the record, I feel I am being diverted intentionally (to look at this other hand) concentrate on the fact they do have a name of a man (whats it me that I dont know him, or have met him, bit on that part of this) see? Be happy (over here) that this man is insured (and sending out its henchmen) to reccompense your situation.

I feel this a lie (I cant help it) because I never heard or met this man supposedly here (and the one in charged) he was not who I was introduced to by name (as being in charge) which would (in turn) mean this insurance company (in relation to the man who I met, and who was really here) is not the one coming onto my premises) and I am suspicious of some kind of racket going on and who is clapping their hands together here in this, like its this huge tangly web and purposely so. For this I would think I need a private investigator for some backround checking, even if it means ruling out by identification.

But I would think (with them) and in respects to this situation, there would be the same need (after so much time) to get this ghost (who was not here) off the hook as there was to make this Billy disapear from all of this (as each of the insurances are not acknowledging who he is). Seems to ressemble a right hand left hand thing that would seem (as far as I can tell) if it were purposed could push through things (uninsured) on one side of it (so as not to be exposed if it were not) but the other part could serve also in tying up the loose ends (while delaying and working on denying) if it wasnt the real man's insurance company (why would they anyway)? But then both going away (in the end) and your left holding the bill of goods (and damages) while they skip away together hand and hand.

The feeling that something just seems really off here continues to follow me. But I think I am so bothered by how corrupt this whole thing is.

Anyway they will be heading here soon, likely on July 7, 2014 if they can arrange for that with Donan engineering to give their spin on "how it should read" (I laughed when I read that, because you so know its true, but only big brother and NSA could prove it)

All these oathkeepers eh'?

So this is where I am now in my ordeal and one of my greatest regrets in signing up with Home depot for my roof installation. On my 2nd year here.

I also have to update my own thread on this soon too. I should just start another thread because my first one was on Home depot's advertising moreso (which included roofs) but the next one should concetrate on the roofing and who was involved and shuffling through the "who dunnit" or various other parts of this while they stall

I so agree with you on most of them "pander to the industry". 

Your last post is right. I was a 40 yr claim executive in 9  of the  nation's top carriers before retiring and now advocating for the policyholder.  I have taken on many hail roof losses in the Midwest and upon challenge, they all are reversed. Hail is a tricky issue as they claim cosmetic damage to the shingles are not covered, but the policy does not say that. Donan Engineer has worked claims with  me from years past and always asks your insurer- "HOW DO YOU WANT THE REPORT TO READ?" They pander to the industry that hires them. What they are really saying is the hail did not hurt the integrity of the shingles. It still keeps the water out and if no holes are in the shingle from hail, there is no coverage.
 
NOT SO FAST...THE POLICY DOES NOT DEFINE DAMAGE. Cosmetic damage is still damage. The granules are still damaged and the shingles will not last as long as expected and may even curl up on the ends in 2 yrs after the adjuster and circus all have left town. You only have one year to file suit or settle your claim from the date of loss in most states.

Yes you have coverage "but for" their expert statements that the hail did not cause structural damage, there is no coverage. They are making up the rules as they go in breach of the contract. Of course not, but the shingle is still damaged. The degree of damage is not defined by the policy ..yet. Some carriers are trying to insert a per cent of damage in the contract for the future wherein the damage must be 80% of the roof to have coverage. That is almost an inducement of fraud and has been rejected in most every state so far. 

You need to hire an Advocate or Public Adjuster for 10-20% maximum fee of the recovery. If he fails it costs you nothing. You want to make sure to demand a cash out ACV settlement. Put the money in your pocket, not the insurance company contractor or hired gun. Its your  right to be paid direct. You can then hire your own sub roofer and pay yourself as the General contractor 30-40% of the money. You may even have to demand appraisal under the policy but you will still win if they dont stack the deck against you in the selection of the umpire. Hiring a PA is still your best bet and settle on a cash out. Dont agree to make any repairs until the cash is in your hands.

The Advocate  

Rather than give up after a claim denial, there is another option that you didn't consider that might have helped you.  And, still might be able to.  You could have contacted a Public Adjuster.  They aren't employed by insurance companies and often can assist you in resolving your loss claim.  They can also use forensic engineers to assist them if need be.  Many times, Public Adjusters can obtain satisfaction.  Of course, they are paid by you, not the insurance company.  But, like court settlements, their fees should be recoverable with any settlement with your insurance carrier.