The Cincinnati Insurance Company / Nederveld cinfin.com nederveld.com/CIC The Cincinnati Insurance Company (NAIC #10677), domiciled in OhioCCC The Cincinnati Casualty Company (NAIC #28665), domiciled in OhioCID The Cincinnati Indemnity Company (NAIC #2 Insurance Fraud / SCAM Company / Regulatory Violations of Federal Consumer Financial Protections Fairfield Ohio

(Claim# 2014066)

(Nederveld File Number 13801332)

To: Cincinnati Insurance Company.

Care of: Office of the President

Chief Executive Officer

Director of Compliance, Underwriting, Legal, et al.

Memorandum for the Record

Pursuant to Consumer Financial Protection Laws, I am notifying you through this correspondence, that I am going to be filing a formal complaint regarding the circumstances for denial by Cincinnati Insurance as it relates to claim #2014066 & by proxy Nederveld File #13801332.

Through my own due diligence, I will be able to factually establish that in the summer of 2013, a series of severe thunderstorms hit the Ohio Valley Region. In their wake, my house’s roof was severely damaged and needed immediate repair. In lieu of this severe roof damage, I filed an insurance claim hoping to get reimbursement for my repairs stemming from my loss.

Subsequently after filing, Cincinnati Insurance (by proxy your affiliate Nederveld) denied my claim for damages. In the final determination, your affiliate adjuster from Nederveld, cites “It is our opinion that the cause of water intrusion is the result of an improperly constructed roof” and “There is no casual relationship between the water intrusion or the deflecting roof with a storm event.” (Pg. 2, Nederveld Report). For the sake of brevity this comment is truncated, but is quoted to invoke the premise for denial of claim #2014066 (Nederveld File #13801332).

Moreover, your adjudicator’s comments puts forth the deceptive notion that there is no possible connection between the severe storms and thus justifies that Cincinnati Insurance should not have to honor this particular claim. Although, in his own reports, he self admits that this particular area has been hard hit by recent storms. (Pg. 2, Nederveld Report)

Interestingly enough, in the 20 years that I have been a Cincinnati Insurance client, you never clearly or conspicuously disclosed that my roof was excluded from coverage. That is of course, not until I filed a claim for reimbursement that you decided to notify me of my exclusions. Not surprisingly, when an insurance company is forced to pay for damages – institutionally their position is to deny responsibility for coverage, for things as basic as roof damage. Again, this is in spite of tacitly accepting 20 years of payments for my property. Luckily, no one was physically injured; otherwise I hate to think of the impact to my family that would have stemmed from this particular business practice.

Certainly, any reasonable person would argue that if your company had clearly and conspicuously conveyed this exclusion of coverage, as it relates to my roof and my home -- I would have acquired insurance through another carrier. This begs the question, what was the purpose in paying you to be my insurer for?

In addition, it is my contention that Cincinnati Insurance and through its subsidiary Nederveld improves your policies and communication procedures for future disclosures on policy exclusions. This notwithstanding I have included substantiation of my damages and am demanding full payment for $15,347.00. This reimbursement amount is for my damages and is promptly requested within 60 days from receipt of this letter.

In due course, If my complaint is not remediated within 60 days, I will be forced to formally seek assistance with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, FTC, CFPB and DOJ in hopes that they provide resolution to this injustice.

Respectfully Sent,