Despite repeated posts from National Real Estate Insurance Group (“NREIG”) employees over several years in this forum, Mr. Hartman continues to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of NREIG’s role in determining whether his claimed loss was in fact covered under the relevant policy. Using Mr. Hartman’s submitted claim as an example, without disclosing specific information of the claim which Mr. Hartman has not already posted to this thread, we would like to take this opportunity to again explain to all how claims are handled by NREIG, while also addressing Mr. Hartman’s unfounded allegations.
As previously discussed several times, NREIG, acting in its capacity as an insurance agent, assists primarily investors with locating and obtaining insurance coverage with insurers such as Lloyd’s of London. When a loss such as Mr. Hartman’s occurs at an insured premises, a notice of loss is submitted to Affinity Claims Management (“ACM”), which then submits the loss information to the insurer or, in the event the insurer has contracted with an agent known in the insurance industry as a third-party administrator (“TPA”) such as McLarens, to the TPA. The insurer then analyzes the insurance policy, comparing the facts surrounding the loss with the express terms and conditions of the policy, and ultimately determines if the submitted claim is covered and, if covered, the amount of insurance proceeds to be paid for the loss. Again, neither NREIG nor ACM is involved in any way in determining whether a claim such as Mr. Hartman’s is covered under any given policy.
Turning to Mr. Hartman’s most recent post, it is important to review Mr. Hartman’s letter concerning these issues he posted to this thread last year which reads in relevant part:
I write out of frustration regarding the above loss. As the beneficial owner of the property located at [REDACTED] (“Property”), I purchased property loss insurance from National Real Estate Ins. Group through the Affinity Insurance Program located in Kansas City, MO, underwritten by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Underwriters”) for the Property in question as well as [REDACTED] other properties owned by [REDACTED].
On or about February 12, 2014, my agents filed the attached Property Loss Notice (“Claim”) and Evidence Of Insurance for the Property with the Underwriters. A copy of the claim is enclosed as Exhibit 1. Thereafter, the Underwriters engaged the services of McLarens Global Claims Services to inspect and photo-document the property; the Adjuster presumably submitted an investigative report to McLarens (“Report”) which was presumably passed up the chain of command to someone in the Underwriter’s office.
On or about May 1, 2014, I received a certified letter from McLarens stating that the Claim was denied by the Underwriters. A copy of this letter is enclosed as Exhibit 2. On June 2, 2014, I sent an email to Mike Sestak at McLarens requesting a copy of the “inspection reports and photographs generated by your local associate Robert Murner as well as any other material or information, i.e. information from Georgia Power, upon which you based your conclusion that the [Claim] is excluded from coverage under the Policy.” A copy of this email is enclosed as Exhibit 3. On June 11, 2014, Mike Sestak informed me via email that the Underwriters denied my request for the Report. A copy of this email is enclosed as Exhibit 4.
In Mr. Hartman’s own words then, the alleged events surrounding the declination of his claim are as follows:
- A loss notice was filed with Lloyd’s;
- Lloyd’s engaged McLarens, a TPA, to inspect the loss site;
- A McLarens adjuster “presumably submitted” an inspection report to Lloyd’s; and
- McLarens advised Mr. Hartman that Lloyd’s had denied his claim.
Noticeably absent is any assertion or suggestion either NREIG or ACM participated in any way, shape, or form in making the ultimate decision to deny Mr. Hartman’s claim. In fact, neither NREIG nor ACM is even mentioned in Mr. Hartman’s letter.
It is one thing to be upset or discouraged when a property damage claim is denied by an insurer. However, it is reckless and unconscionable to continuously and repeatedly make wholly unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations of wrongdoing against an insurance agent for the coverage determinations of an insurer and its TPA. NREIG proudly insurers over 60,000 properties spread across all 50 states and is dedicated in assisting real estate investors in obtaining this unique line of coverage.
Moreover, NREIG and ACM take insureds’ privacy seriously. Consistent with this steadfast practice, given the numerous posted requests by this forum’s members to produce information sufficient to clarify precisely how Mr. Hartman’s claim was denied, and by whom, NREIG and ACM have in this forum requested Mr. Hartman’s authority to post certain information including the declination letter. Mr. Hartman has declined, electing instead to attack NREIG and ACM’s solid professional reputation.
As a final matter, while not addressed in Mr. Hartman’s most recent post, much has been made by Mr. Hartman in previous posts concerning his complaint filed with the Arizona Department of Insurance (“AZ DOI”). It is a correct statement that NREIG received a letter from the AZ DOI dated September 16, 2014, which advised that:
We are conducting an examination into the issues presented in a complaint we received from [Jason Hartman]. A copy of the complaint is enclosed. Please provide a detailed written explanation of your position regarding each of the specific issues and allegations raised by the complainant.
A copy of Mr. Hartman’s complaint, dated September 3, 2014, was attached to the letter. NREIG promptly responded to the AZ DOI by letter dated September 17, 2014, walking through the facts surrounding the declination of Mr. Hartman’s submitted claim. After some time, NREIG was advised that the complaint was being closed. While it does not appear the AZ DOI publishes complaints nor notices of such complaints being closed, the AZ DOI does appear to publish Administrative Orders issued against licensees for violations of Arizona insurance laws and regulations. A simple search of its online collection of issued Administrative Orders confirms no order was issued against NREIG: https://insurance.az.gov/administrative-orders.
It is NREIG and ACM’s sincere hope this post will be the last time this matter is raised; however, such is not in our power. As we have always said, we welcome all questions concerning NREIG’s program, insurance products offered, and look forward to discussing and assisting everyone with your unique insurance needs.
