Residence Mutual - Western Mutual Insurance Company Arizona Home Insurance Company Cancellation after one single (denied) claim Internet

I retract all posts

I retract this post

I wish to fully retract this statement and any which precede it or follow it. 

All ongoing issues with Western Mutual have been resolved for any and all posts created by this author. 

What a soft, wet, stinky load you spewed on behalf of the Crail Family Foundation for the promotion of Corruption and Greed.  Karma's gonna  get your fat, offensive, paranoid psychotic a**, no doubt about it. 

A rip-off family run organization where having a big fat a*s and the last name of Crail or having attended USC is all that matters.  

This  "Insurance  company"  is  a  joke they  act  like  a  n**i-HOA,  looking  for  problems  which are not  an  insurance  company's   business,  like  for  example  paint:

What  kind  of  risk  does  old  paint  impose ?   A  friend  of  mine  just  received  a  letter  telling her  to  paint  her  patio  and  to  remove  debris  from her  backyard.   It  is none  of  their  business  and it  does  not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  risk  of  insuring the  property.   What  is  next -   a  letter  telling the  homeowner  that  the  policy  will  be  cancelled  if  he  does  not  wash  the  curtains  or  remove  the stains  on the  carpet ?

What  a  joke  of  an  insurance  company.

I just received a letter, notice of non-renewal for roof conditions, i admit the roof does need some work, but it does not need to be entirely replaced, and it does not leak, will my company insure me if the repairs are made? or do i need to go to a new company, and will they insure me even after receiving a notice of non-renewal?

Update:  I  proposed to exclude any coverage for water damages  (since the roof is repaired  and  I  don't  expect any  problems with it...)

Yes,  this  insurance  company  insists on  kicking me out  without explaining how  a  leaking  roof  could  affect  the  other  risks  like  fire  or  burglary.

Their  demand  to  have  the  entire  roof  replaced  for  several  thousands  of  dollars  (by  a  licensed,  bonded  and  sworn-in  contractor...)  clearly  shows  that  their intention is  to  "punish"  me for my  claim.  Why  should  someone  spend  thousands of  dollars  to  replace a  roof  that  is not  leaking  at  all ???    Since  I  repaired  the  roof   we  have  had  several  severe  thunderstorms  that  flooded  the  entire  street  but  not  one single drop entered my  house.  What  happened  to  Americas  Freedom ?   It  is  my  home  and  I  don't  have  the  right  to  repair it   ????  

Looks like the attachment did not go through,  here we go again...

Here is  a  letter  that I  received in today's  mail,  making it  clear  that  fixing the roof myself  or  to  have water / roof  damages  excluded  from the policy is no  option for them. 

I  am  surprised that they are not  asking me to tear the entire  house down and build a new one  (by a  licensed,  insured and sworn-in contractor...)

  The point is that their "inspector" appeared to object to the fact that over the years I had replaced some shingles on the roof.   Anyone who has a shingled roof in Central AZ knows that high winds caused by seasonal thunderstorms will damage the occasional shingle, even on a fairly new roof.  If they are NOT replaced, then you'll have problems and leaks.   

  I used to put roofs on houses in my younger days and I question their inspector's expertise in this area.  Suffice it to say, the roof has still never leaked and most of the houses in my neighborhood still have their original roof (at least those who have properly replaced occasionally damaged shingles).  

   After the vacant house business, then the roof business, this company was just a waste of time.   I haven't had a hint of trouble since going to a major insurance company.

Could you please tell us based on the information that Flynrider posted how were you  able to look up their file and know exactly what their situation was?

Dear  anonymous insurance  underwriter: 

Now you exposed yourself and your company's  business practices.  What I understand is that you are having a problem with people who file a claim within 6  months  of  obtaining coverage from your company.  Those are  probably  the "bad  apples  among  your customers"  and you try to find a  reason to get rid of them,  regardless  if  they  had  insurance for the last 20  years  with a  different company  for the same  property...

Sorry,  if  my  picture does not  show  each  single  square inch of my  roof  but you  requested  to  replace the  entire (!!!)   roof,  so  what  does it  matter to you if  the spot  that was  leaking can't  be  seen on the picture ?

What you want to say  is  that  someone who makes a claim within 6  month  already  had  the problem for years  but was too afraid to make the claim with his old insurance company,  so  this person switched to your company  before making a  claim  for a  problem that  he could have  reported  to  the  prior company.

I  would not  have had  a  problem with  an exclusion of  water damages from your policy,  especially  since  the roof is no  longer leaking  and in perfect shape.  But  the roof  or  the  risk  of  having to pay  for  water damages  is  not  what  your company is concerned about.  What  matters  to  your company  is  to get rid of  customers  who  make claims,  especially  those  who  make  claims within  the first 6  months.

You  know  very  well  that  the  leak  has  been  fixed  by  now -   I  spent  almost  $ 500,-  and  several  days  of  work  to  scratch the old materials off  and  install the  torch down rolled  roofing.  I  own  this  house and live in it,  so  why  shouldn't  I  have  the right to repair it  myself -  do you get a  commission  from  roofing companies ?   Do you have some kind of  a  deal  with  the board of  contractors or  the  State of Arizona ?

Why  should  I  call  a  company  (licensed,  insured and sworn in....)     to  replace the entire roof  for several thousands  of  Dollars  if  there are  no  leaks  or any  kind of  problems ?   Do  you think I  spent  all  that  money  for  fun,  did all that  work because  I  was  bored and did not have  anything better  to do ?   All  what  this is  about  is  to  find a  reason  to  get  rid of  me  because  those  who make claims are your company's  enemies.

Again, I work for this company and would also like to address the circumstances of the second complaint (by "Flynrider").  According to our files we insured this property for 15 years.  When we did a routine exterior inspection in 2006, the inspector noted that the dwelling appeared to be vacant, and was in need of paint and some repairs.  The photographs of the home supported the inspector's conclusion as to vacancy, but he did not specifically photograph the lock box so there weren't any photos of that to show the insured.  As the insured noted, we cancelled the policy for vacancy at that time and advised the lender as required by the policy conditions.  The insured contacted us and advised that he lived in the home, and we asked for documentation that he resided at the property.  We also advised the insured that repairs and maintenance were necessary, including roof repair/ replacement. 

We accepted the insured's response regarding living in the home, so the policy was reinstated and the lender was advised of the reinstatement.  However, the insured advised us that he was doing a major exterior renovation - including paint and landscaping - but he did not intend to replace the roof.  When we reinspected about eight months later, the reinspection showed that there were still damaged shingles on the roof, which increased the likelihood of future leaks.  Since we will cover interior water damage if the roof leaked, we conditionally nonrenewed the policy indicating that if the roof were replaced, we would continue coverage.  We never heard back from the policyholder after that.  As the author noted, we advised the lender that the policy was nonrenewed and apparently he found another policy that he was happy with. 

I work in the Underwriting Department of Arizona Home Insurance Company and this matter was brought to my attention.  We work hard to maintain good business and concerns of this nature are taken seriously.  I was able to locate the above mentioned file and there are a couple of things I would like to address.  First, the water damage occurred to the leaking roof over the Arizona room, which is in the back of the house and not shown in the photograph online. 

Second, our company did pay for the water damage repairs, but did not pay for a new roof because the damage to the roof was not sudden and accidental, but appeared to have occurred over a long period of time.  Homeowners policies are intended to cover accidents, like roof shingles blowing off in heavy winds; they are not warranty policies that replace roofs or other items that have worn out over time.  As an underwriter, the concern is that the roof, if not replaced, could leak again so we require the homeowner to replace the roof to continue coverage.  We had insured this home for less than six months when the loss occurred, and as he mentioned, we are willing to renew the policy if he chooses to replace his roof.  We hope he will contact us to resolve the matter. 

Follow up:  I  called  some insurance companies today  and their answer was:

"Our  policy  is not  to  issue  a  policy  if  there has been  a  claim within the  past 3  years"

It  looks  like  I  will not  even be  able to get  insurance  against  fire  because my  roof had  a  leak almost a year ago,  I  really  start to  hate  the  insurance industry -  why  don't  they  just exclude water damage  or  roof damage  from their  policy  if  they  believe  that  the  roof  is  an unbearable risk for them ?

I  believe that the problem is not  the roof  or  the house itself,  it is just about  getting rid  of  certain customers.  The  roof is  just  an  excuse.

   I was with Arizona Home Insurance company for 20 yrs.

"This insurance company obviously only likes people who pay for their policy without ever making a claim."

   Not exactly.   See, I was insured by them for 20 yrs. and never made a single claim and they did the same thing.   For some weird reason, they want to get rid of good customers.

  First they told me they were cancelling because my house was unoccupied.  That was totally bogus.  I have lived in the house since it was brand new and it's been continually occupied since 1986.   After I got that squared away, they started it all over again claiming they had pictures of a lockbox on my door (pictures they wouldn't show me) and the house was for sale.  I bought the house new and it's never been on the market.  Complete fabrication.

 Soon after, they sent another notice of cancellation because they claimed my roof was too old.  They wouldn't reconsider unless I showed them proof that a licensed contractor had replaced the roof (sound familiar?).  The roof is fine and has never leaked since it was new.    I told them to go pound sand.  About 3/4 of the houses on my street are still wearing their original shingles (kudos to the builder!). Their demands were unreasonable.

  I switched to a real insurance company and they had no problem with my old roof, and they turned out to be 20% less expensive with more coverage.   I recommend you do the same. It's been over 3 years and I still have the same roof and a lower insurance bill.

  I have no problems if this compay doesn't want my business, but they were constantly reporting to my mortgage holder that the insurance was being cancelled and the chain of events that set off was getting out of hand.  I'd recommend no one do business with these bozos.