Improper Handling of Auto Insurance Claims has Cost the Hartford $158K after an Investigation From Vermont Department of Financial Regulation

By
Published:

Followed by the investigation conducted by Department of Financial Regulation of Vermont, it has been declared that about $81,700 restitution will be paid by the company to the auto insurance policyholders in Vermont who applied for the claims. As reported by DFR, the total amount payable by The Hartford also includes 12% interest for the unsettled or underpaid auto insurance claims for the period of 2009 to 2011. DFR spokeswoman, Dale Schaft, mentioned in this context that all payments to be made to the Vermont policyholders are “all over the map,” which ranges from $5.58 to a whopping $3294.

All payments as restitution must be issued by The Hartford within fourteen days of December 10 order, as stated by DFR. In addition to the amount payable as restitution, the company has also been fined $77,000 as administrative penalties. The investigators from DFR has not particularly specified how the company improperly evaluated the auto insurance claims, but reported that it could be directly related to multiple cases of violations of section 8 of regulation 79-2. This is a portion of insurance regulation that specifies the state code governing the partial and total loss insurance claims. As mentioned by Schaft, some of the total-loss auto insurance claims had been “improperly calculated” by The Hartford, but she didn’t provide any specifications supporting the same.

According to a report, the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation started the case on The Hartford in late August 2011. The insurance claim dates that were addressed in the case were between the periods of January 2009 to September 15, 2011. According to the agreement with the regulator, the insurer will have to undergo training, staffing, and auditing to ensure standard compliance. It has to limit total loss insurance claims between only six and nine members, and such claims will be subject to “supervisory review.”

In this regard, Commissioner Steve Kimbell said that it is always acceptable when any company admits its erroneous practices and focuses on making improvements.

Followed by the investigation conducted by Department of Financial Regulation of Vermont, it has been declared that about $81,700 restitution will be paid by the company to the auto insurance policyholders in Vermont who applied for the claims. As reported by DFR, the total amount payable by The Hartford also includes 12% interest for the unsettled or underpaid auto insurance claims for the period of 2009 to 2011. DFR spokeswoman, Dale Schaft, mentioned in this context that all payments to be made to the Vermont policyholders are “all over the map,” which ranges from $5.58 to a whopping $3294.

All payments as restitution must be issued by The Hartford within fourteen days of December 10 order, as stated by DFR. In addition to the amount payable as restitution, the company has also been fined $77,000 as administrative penalties. The investigators from DFR has not particularly specified how the company improperly evaluated the auto insurance claims, but reported that it could be directly related to multiple cases of violations of section 8 of regulation 79-2. This is a portion of insurance regulation that specifies the state code governing the partial and total loss insurance claims. As mentioned by Schaft, some of the total-loss auto insurance claims had been “improperly calculated” by The Hartford, but she didn’t provide any specifications supporting the same.

According to a report, the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation started the case on The Hartford in late August 2011. The insurance claim dates that were addressed in the case were between the periods of January 2009 to September 15, 2011. According to the agreement with the regulator, the insurer will have to undergo training, staffing, and auditing to ensure standard compliance. It has to limit total loss insurance claims between only six and nine members, and such claims will be subject to “supervisory review.”

In this regard, Commissioner Steve Kimbell said that it is always acceptable when any company admits its erroneous practices and focuses on making improvements.