Anyone who owns a vehicle or a home knows the comfort, even when inconvenient, insurance provides. Most of us live where insurance on automobiles is a requirement for licensure. I live in one such state.
While I disagree with the current application of required insurance, I am not opposed to the requirement all drivers have insurance. My insurance company and I have had anniversaries marriages long for. My credit union and I are on the road to divorce.
In a nauseous turn of events, an agent at the credit union whose first name is Ms. (pet peeve #936) sent me the equivalent of a dun letter. In this snotty piece of hatemail, Ms. informed me she would have no alternative but place an exorbitant policy on my truck to protect their interest in the same as it was obvious I would not be obtaining insurance as her previous correspondence had requested.
Are you hearing the
Friday Follies train?
(Aside: This was the original topic Clyde had in mind for the SEP [which aired on Tuesday], but has been modified, amplified and otherwise improved in terms of indignant outrage and throwing of objects and obscenities for your viewing pleasure.)
Despite this being the second such complaint I have made, I was (hold on to your hat) polite in my issuance of a corporate character assassination on Ms. In fact, my complaint righteously requested an investigation into what could possibly be making Ms. assume I was uninsured.
Ms. had someone else in the insurance department to email me.
I am responding to the e-mail you sent to BANK, concerning the letters, you have received about your insurance. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. We have received cancellations on your auto insurance(1). The last cancellation on your auto was dated 7-31-12(2). I would be glad to mail you a copy(3). We are unable to use ID cards as proof of insurance, because they do not show your coverage amounts or BANK listed on the policy. For some reason your company is not sending us a renewal statement(4) after they send us a cancel(5). I was able to go on INSURER’s website(6) and pull a copy of your policy(7). I sent it to our tracking center today. This should take care of the problem. If you receive another letter, just(8) call your company and have them fax us a renewal of your policy.
Again I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you(9). Please feel free to call me about any concerns or questions you may have.
I did not even cover my mouth when I coughed [expletive].
Rather than explain the numbered things wrong with this “response” in advance, I offer my typical M3 Friday Follies hatemail response (sent to the responder, the loan department and the president of my branch) to BANK’s rebuttal. It covers numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9.
I originally believed BANK had my policy confused with another shareholder. After your email, I am no longer convinced this is merely an honest mistake.
My INSURER account is on an automatic payment. My policy has not been cancelled at any time since I bought this truck. It was in force before I signed the loan documents for this vehicle and BANK was listed as lien holder from the issuance of the policy.
- There is no way BANK received a policy cancellation on my account in July because INSURER has never issued a cancellation on this policy. The auto payment was made just as it is every month. In July, renewal papers became available for my approval. THIS IS NOT A CANCELLATION.
- My policies (all of them, not just the one on the BANK collateral) are set to automatically renew because they do not change. INSURER sends an informational copy to me electronically and an old fashioned paper copy to BANK. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A CANCELLATION.
- What BANK received was a INSURER policy change. They changed their policies to no longer pay the lien holder and insured separately. THIS IS NOT A CANCELLATION.
- In the packet was what the insurance industry refers to as a “dec sheet”. It is a declarations page. It clearly shows the coverage necessary and BANK as the lien holder. THIS IS NOT A CANCELLATION.
- I am attaching precisely what INSURER sent to BANK in July. IT IS NOT A CANCELLATION.
Regardless of your claim to the contrary, BANK did not receive a cancellation on my auto policy. In fact, the proof of insurance the BANK letter demanded was in the paperwork BANK claims was a cancellation.
I am thoroughly exhausted by the effort necessary to prove I have insurance every time the shareholder with whom my account is crossed gets a cancellation notice. While BANK pays its agents to contact insurance companies, I receive no benefit from my time-consuming, futile, repetitious attempts to correct accounting errors beyond my control in the direct purview of the BANK insurance department.
Sending me a cancellation of someone else’s policy would be a violation of that shareholder’s rights. In no way will I be shamed in submission by a hollow threat of sending me paperwork. I have no doubt about the integrity of my auto insurance coverage. Neither am I ignorant of the issuance and maintenance of insurance policies.
For the record, had INSURER issued a cancellation notice, by law it would have to issue said notice to me as the insured, not merely to you, the lien holder. I have not received any such notification because my policy has never been cancelled in the eight years I have had this particular policy. If BANK keeps records, you would be able to note this policy also covered the previous vehicle I financed with BANK.
Further, this has never been a problem before this loan. With my previous auto loan, which was on the same policy, renewals arrived in due course without this incessant need to have INSURER fax something to BANK in the interim and conclusion of every renewal cycle, despite their having supplied it properly in the first place. This is not the first time I have made this precise complaint.
Alternatively, in the event you or BANK’s agent (Ms. XXX) actually read the paperwork you have threatened to send me, rather than what appears to be just looking at the account number and assuming the only thing ever received is a cancellation notice, this could have been avoided and saved all of the shareholders money.
I have been a INSURER customer for over 14 years and had no problem obtaining precisely what I needed. I am the kind of customer they appreciate because I do not cancel, miss payments or make claims. Their agent was apologetic for BANK’s misinterpretation of their documents. Your email appendage claiming you were sorry for the inconvenience of me having to duplicate unnecessary effort did not ring as sincere, as the body of your message was clear in its intimation I should have nothing better to do than “just call [my] company”.
If BANK’s corporate stance is the shareholder is always wrong and a delinquent while their agents are infallible, it is time for me to be shopping for alternative banking options.
I will be actively seeking an authority higher than yours for this complaint.
(2) Although it has been covered to a large degree, does anyone in the M3 Readers notice what month it is wherein they are demanding my immediate compliance?
(4) It is of note, in the last four cycles of the policy, I have received no notifications because the renewal documents arrived in an 6 x 9″ envelope which has RENEWAL DOCUMENTS written in 36 point font on the outside of the envelope (in direct contrast to the #10 envelope which screams CANCELLATION NOTICE they claim to have at the ready to send to me to prove I am a delinquent).
(6) Were BANK not listed as lien holder, they would have had no access to INSURER’s website.
(7) If the policy were cancelled, INSURER would not provide a copy of the former policy nor admit I was a client.
Pardon all the webscream, but the bank and insurer are all referred to by acronyms. Oh, and I was webscreaming about the cancellation, which was delivered in a prettier shade of red. Well, and (4) really is delivered in far larger webscream than I am accustomed to using.
I see it.
Bank agent did not bother to do anything except look in her handy dandy computer (which takes itself offline no less than once per day during customary business hours) to see if Ms. wrote an entry supporting her correspondence. How many ways are managers getting this wrong?
If your employee has a computer generated letter sent, the software is not in on the conspiracy theory. Your employee had to have put in some sort of data, correct or otherwise, directing the computer to generate such letters.
Let’s face it.
Computers are as lazy and ignorant as their users. Even if it can take itself offline to perform whatever digital masturbation is needed, the computer did not randomly select my account for harassment.
So, Bank agent, you are a grade-A, bona fide languid sloth. It was far easier to see if an erroneous record was entered than to see if the record which was inferred by the complaint was indeed valid. Furthermore, your oblivious system illiteracy is a testament to what plagues society on the whole. In your self-righteous belief being present at the job site fulfills your obligation to receive compensation, you offend every single person who has ever held as much as one minim of corporate integrity or personal responsibility.
Tosses soap box in the Beast and puts hoof on accelerator.
Have we as a society become so dependent and trustworthy as to assume our colleagues never make errors in data entry? Why do we get error messages and assume it is a normal course of events, but assume what we see in print (virtual or on paper) must be correct? Are we raising a generation who will be unable to get out of their chairs?