SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY The Worst! Deceptive! Insurance Claim Schemes by SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY Ripoff Boston Massachusetts

IF YOU HAVE A CLAIM WITH SAFETY INSURANCE, YOU ARE THE ENEMY

On June 11th 2005 I parked my car on the side of the street overnight near my house. On the morning of June 12th 2005 I found the whole right front side of our car smashed. I immediately called the police, filled a police report and mailed copies the following day to RMV, my insurance and the Medford police dept. I was assigned a claim number and got the car appraised twice just before it was towed off and after from the body shop.

It took 3 months for the insurance company (Safety Insurance) to conclude investigations and deny my claim. It bluntly alleged that I misconstrued facts and lied to them (They claimed that the car must have been moving when the accident happed yet I said it was saying it was stationary). I vehemently dispute this allegation but unfortunately Safety insurance practices claim rating based on a racial model. If you are minority and you file a claim, they will automatically flag you as a cheat with the intention of fraud so they will front their allegations with re-constructionists and investigators reports to support their denials.while they put you in an eternal waiting period hoping you will break and walk away - they know this from experiance that many people throw in the towel.

They have intentionally misinterpreted or misconstrued claims information sniffed for ways to deny my claim. In essence, they have used deceptive insurer schemes like employing outside company services set up to conduct the same false pretense schemes (i.e. "Accident re-constructionists / investigators") for the purpose to be able to wrongfully deny or reduce payment of my claim.

I have several witnesses who can attest that the car could not even have moved an inch in the condition it was. I live on a dead end street and many times people try to make U turns on realizing that it's a dead end and they end up ramming into cars on either side of this very narrow street. I made a point to the adjuster to mention this to the investigators and if possible for them to come and take a logistical analysis of where I had parked and question me and the neighbors around but I'm sure this wasn't done because they were too busy running their scientific/forensic formulas on drawing boards in their offices.

I have been very cooperative with this insurer for all this time contrary to what's stated in the denial letter i.e. After an accident or loss, you or anyone else covered under this policy must cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement and defense of any claim or lawsuit Unless this cooperation is one sided and only intended to benefit the insurer that facts supplied by the insured are regarded as being uncooperative. This leads me to believe that they already had it in their minds to avoid paying for this claim. The reason they insist on i.e. that the car was moving and not stationary like I stated in my claim is sadly ridiculous because the car could hardly move due to the way they smashed the right fender body onto the front wheel.

The gentleman who came to tow the car had to hoist it onto a flatbed realizing that they could easily rip the right front tire apart with all the fender metal stuck around it. In other words its implied that I knocked and drove back home, parked and then used whatever object I could use to ram my own car to a non-drivable condition.

Safety Insurance's independent expert alleges, The damages indicated that this vehicle was involved in an accident with a fixed vertical object which is in direct conflict with the state that the car was in being that any forced horizontal movement would rip the tire apartMatter of fact unless I had a ripped/ cut tire, then it would be logical to say that I forced my way into a nearby vertical fixed object.

Another important fact to consider is that the car was parked and it's the right front side that was facing out towards any outgoing or incoming traffic (car was Hit on the front passenger side). Having this in mind and knowing that the car could not slide forward (because of the fender stuck on the wheel) leaves out only one option and that would be the Vertical object ramming into my car.

Safety insurances theory places the vertical fixed object on the right front side of my car and that means the vertical object was in the middle of the road. Which means when I rammed into it, it rendered my car non-drivable and I decided to leave my car there while the fixed object somehow got uprooted and left the scene. So either way before or after this collision the vertical object theory doesn't hold. It's a fabricated conclusion intended to deny my legitimate claim.

Its now 6 months since this incident, and now my only option is to fight till I end this horrible insurance nightmare.

I hereby denounce such demeaning / misleading techniques that Safety insurance representatives, adjuster, or supervisors used to treat dedicated clients like a mere numbers and a crooks who is out to defraud their establishment.

Please get in touch with me if you need any more clarification. I call for some unbiased representation to end this Bad faith.

Roland
Medford, Massachusetts
U.S.A.