The Hartford Insurance Complaint - Dishonest and unfair
I was in a car accident in October 2006. An old lady ran a stop sign and I hit her at the intersection (I did not have to stop). At first they said that I was 15% liable because I should have seen her coming. I argued that down to 5% based on the layout of the intersection (cars parked along the road, house makes side streets not visible until you are in front of them). On principle I would have argued it lower, but I wanted to get it over with. After the accident, when I called the insurance company they stated that they would not agree to pay for a rental car until liability was established. I explained that the vehicle that was damaged was our only vehicle for a family of five, and that we needed that to get to work, the children to school, etc. The representative stated that once liability was established that the car rental would go retro. I agreed that I would put the rental on my credit card and then seek compensation from them with the settlement once liability was established (there was no doubt in my mind that liability would be on their insured). To make a long story short, when it came time to pay for the rental car, they stated that they would not pay for the rental car until liability was established, and that it would go retro (from that day that we were having the conversation back to the day that liability was established). I explained that was not what this exact same representative had told me, and that that was not retroactive. I explained to her that the fact that liability hadn't been established at that point did not make them any less liable in the situation, but she still said they could only pay after liability had been established, which was more than a week after the accident (were they dragging their feet to get out of paying more???). I spoke to her supervisor and expained the situation AGAIN, stating that we didn't have another vehicle and that I was entitled to a rental since their insured and made my van undriveable. She agreed to pay for the rental back to the day of the accident. Then she argued about the towing and storage. I told her that I couldn't have parked my car at my home because of city ordinances regarding inoperable vehicles, and the two body shops that I had called (the two that I would actually let work on my van in the area) said that if they were not contracted for the work that they charged storage, which was, in fact, more expensive than the storage charged by the towing company. I explaned this, and she still refused to pay for storage beyond the three day window from when they sent the letter. I didn't know if the van was totalled, which is why I didn't have it taken to the body shop.
Anyway, getting ANYTHING from them was a nightmare, and in most cases I just settled because I was tired of dealing with it. Now I have medical bills going to collections because they agreed to pay medial bills for the 30 days after the accident, and those have not yet been paid. I've been begging the creditors not to send them to collections, but I'm guessing they've waited enough, and I suppose they're right.
I have nothing good to say about The Hartford. Nothing at all.