Complaint Review: Farmers Insurance Group - Nationwide

Farmers Insurance Company Scams State Insurance Commissioner and Consumer. My car was stolen, completely stripped, and declared a total loss by Farmers. It was a 1994 Acura Integra GSR model. The GSR is a high-end sport version of the Integra, with 170 horsepower VTEC engine, highly sought-after alloy wheels unique to the GSR model, and all sport-tuned and luxury features available. I demonstrated to Farmers on 3 occasions with actual market data that these cars are selling for $7,000 up to as much as $14,000.

By comparison, a plain 1994 Acura Integra (RS, LS model) with a mere 142 horsepower engine and fewer features sells for around $4,000 to $5,000.

Well, guess how much Farmers' settlement offer is? The first offer was $4,400, their latest offer is $5,100. So I started investigating their comparable vehicles. Whenever I looked for my own comparables, I could never find more than three 1994/1995 Acura Integra GSR vehicles for sale at any one time. So, I was scratching my head when I read in Farmers' valuation report that they had a whopping 10 Integra GSR comparables. I thought, "Wow, where did they find all those?" They provided 16 vehicle comps. Six were RS or LS models and the other ten were GSR models. And when they adjusted a RS or LS model, they only added about $750 to the value. The difference in value is clearly much greater than that, largely due to the VTEC engine which is only installed in the GSR model.

Well, I started calling the sellers of the Integra GSR model comparable vehicles. Of the 10, three were unreachable (disconnected number, no contact info, etc.) Of the remaining seven, NONE OF THEM were actually GSR models! They were all the cheaper RS or LS models that Farmers was falsely representing as GSR models!

By taking cheaper RS and LS models, and claiming they were GSR models, they were arriving at an extremely low-ball valuation. I presented them 3 different sets of comparables which clearly demonstrate the value of my vehicle to be $3,000 to $4,000 more than their offer. Their low-ball valuation was further compounded by the ridiculously low adjustment amount they used between a RS/LS and a GSR.

The irony of the situation is that my car was stolen BECAUSE it is a GSR model. There is a black market for GSR VTEC engines and wheels and other parts. But Farmers does not want to compensate me for a GSR model, they only want to compensate me for a RS/LS model. But of course if my car was a RS/LS model, it would not have been stolen in the first place!

It is also interesting to note that Farmers' first offer was made only a few days before the rental car benefit expired, even though their valuation report was dated just days after my car was stolen and recovered (a month earlier)! Surely they expected that I would agree to the settlement so that I would not be without a car. Unfortunately for them, I don't go down without a fight!

Because Farmers Insurance was stonewalling me with falsified data and was unwilling to consider any of the numerous comparables I presented to them, I filed a complaint with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner. After a solid 30 days worth of time (the amount of time under the law that Farmers has to respond), I finally heard back from the Insurance Commissioner.

The Insurance Commissioner (IC) said Farmers, in their response to my complaints, has provided a third valuation which increased their offer by $100, and that there is nothing else they can do since Farmers' valuation is based on market data and standard industry practice.

Well, I knew something was still fishy, so I went through all of the documentation that the IC sent me. After pleading my case with the IC to get them to understand that they had been hoodwinked by Farmers, they are now sending a new letter to Farmers demanding more information and justification. Here is a summary of what transpired with my complaints, broken down by issue:

1. The IC asked Farmers why they did not consider any of my comparables. Farmers replied that they all either had performance modifications not present on my vehicle or they could not verify the sales price.

Reality is I presented nearly 20 comparables, including GSR and RS/LS models, and only one had performance modifications. It is highly improbable that Farmers could not verify the sales price of at least a few of them. And even if one did have performance modifications, why could they not just adjust the price like they do with every other vehicle?

So, the IC is now requiring Farmers to provide a detailed explanation for every comparable vehicle I sent Farmers as to why it cannot be considered. I re-sent a copy of the comps to the IC who is forwarding them to Farmers.

2. The IC asked why Farmers was only using a $750 +/- adjustment between the low-end RS/LS models and the GSR model. Farmers replied that their good friends at CCC advised them that the only differences between the RS/LS and the GSR is alloy wheels and a trim package. So they were allotting about $80 for the wheels and about $670 for the trim package.

Reality is that most people do not consider a different engine and transmission (among other things) to be "trim". I sent the IC a complete list of the vehicle specifications, highlighting the numerous engine and mechanical differences. I also asked the IC (tongue in cheek) if they have ever heard of a car being stolen, stripped of its trim package, and dumped on the side of the road. Of course the answer was no. My car was stolen and had its VTEC engine stripped, not its stupid trim package, before being dumped. And that is the most important and valuable difference between the GSR and the low-end RS/LS models.

The IC is now asking Farmers why they only adjusted for wheels and trim, and not for the engine and other mechanical differences, and requiring them to justify (or change) their position.

3. The IC thought that, in responding to their first letter, Farmers had corrected the falsified vehicle models in the valuation. Because Farmers' new valuation resulted in a higher value by $100, the IC had the impression that everything was fixed.

Reality is, however, that all seven of the comparables in Farmers' new valuation were the exact same vehicles used in their previous valuation with the exact same falsified data. Five of the seven were falsified GSR vehicles. The only thing Farmers did was "shuffle the deck." Farmers removed a few vehicles to arrive at a slightly higher valuation, rearranged the vehicles, and voila - a new valuation that fooled the IC.

After many "I'm sorry that is all we can do" statements from the IC, I finally managed to get them to see that they had been fooled by Farmers. So, they are now requiring Farmers to correct their data. Hopefully the IC will check it this time instead of assuming Farmers is on the up-and-up and telling me "too bad."

Now I have to wait again for another response. The IC says that Farmers has another 30 days to respond, but for some strange reason they think Farmers will respond quickly. I hope I am wrong, but I seriously expect Farmers to take as many of those 30 days as they can. That means more time they can hold onto MY MONEY and more time when they can hope that I'll cave in and give up and take their puny offer, which is not happen!

My car was stolen on February 13, 2006. The rental car benefit expired around March 24, 2006. It is now June 5, 2006, and I still don't have any money from Farmers or a car. So much for getting me back where I belong, as Farmers' marketing tag line claims.

Michael

Seattle, Washington
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Farmers Insurance