TravelersA Premises slip and fall

A
This review was posted by
a verified customer
Verified customer

Dear California Insurance Commission,
On March 19, 2016, I had a premises slip and fall at 3308 Arden Way, Sacramento CA., 95825 (Arden Way, LLC and Arden Way No. 2, LLC) after shopping at the Dollar Tree. This property is owned by McLaughlin Company. The accident happened at about 1:00 pm and was caused by the cosmetic landscape monument which blocked both the full exit and entrance of my passenger right side door. The ambulance was called and I was taken to Dignity Health mercy Hospital on J. Street. The emergency doctor temporary secured my leg in a split cast and told me I urgently needed to see an orthopedic for surgery in 4-5 days.
On March 20, 2016 I contacted property Manager Tom O’Neil by voicemail at 10:27 am and then followed up with another call on Monday march 2, to file insurance compliant.
On April 5, 2016 Dr. Gavin Ripp located at (St George Medical Center 6620 Coyle Avenue, Suite 202 Carmichael, CA [protected]) performed surgery on my right ankle at Dignity Health San Juan which resulted in a rod, 2 nails, 2 screws, nerve damage because now my ankle shakes uncontrollably and permanent scaring. I understand-under the insurance guidelines this is considered a hard break.
What disturbs me is the Property Manager Tom O’Neil has never contacted me after filing a complaint to sympathize with my accident on their property; neither has the owner of McLaughlin Company. I was told they didn’t do it because they were afraid of being sued.
On April 1, 2016, at 2:45 pm PST, Brooke Michanczyk Claim Professional from Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Insurance finally contacted me for my complaint. She said she would investigate it and get back to me. She gave me a claim number of E5Q3135.
On April 4, I emailed her pictures of where the accident took place. She replied on April 5, 2016 by email while I was having my surgery and said my claim had been forwarded to The Claim Handler’s contact information:
Joe Chu
Phone: [protected]
Email: [protected]@travelers.com
Since I had not heard from Joe Chu as of as of Monday April 11, 2016, I contacted him on Wednesday April 13. After greeting him I offered to send my medical expenses, and pictures. He said it was okay until I started to advocate my case.
My violation: Joe Chu had already pre-judged my case based on my pictures and had already concluded prior to me calling the property owner McLaughlin was not liable or at fault because he is under compliance with Sacramento County codes in having the decorated, cosmetic landscape monuments.
My response to Joe Chu: Codes change every year. One will not know of a noncompliance issue until a tragic accident or critical accident occurs and is reported to the county inspectors and code enforcement which brings about a change in codes. Bumpers and traffic lights are not implemented until several deaths have occurred and residents then petition for safety regulations.
Discrimination: Joe Chu told me if I was handicap and had slipped and fell then they would be liable. I should not have to identify myself as handicap to be compensated for an accident that clearly created a condition of hazard and endangerment by their cosmetic, decoration landscape monument. This is clearly discrimination.
My Violation: Joe Chu did not take the time to properly investigate my case. When I gave him my response, he became very angry, upset and told me there was no further need to send in my medical records because was making a decision and was denying my claim on April 13.
A denial letter was mailed indicating their investigation indicates our insured took reasonable care to inspect and maintain the premises. My response to this is: maintaining and cleaning the property is totally different from creating a condition of hazard. Again, one will not know a condition of hazard is created until an accident happens and is reported. Their conclusion is there is no apparent defect or issue in the loss area. My response is: there is no apparent defect or issue in the loss area when road bumps and traffic light are implemented. It’s implemented due to several deaths taking place and or critical injuries. Their conclusion is: The conditions are open and oblivious. It appears the proximate cause is due to your inattention: My response: inattention means my negligence. It is not my negligence you chose to put a decorative, cosmetic landscape monument that evidently took up the full entrance of the front right passenger door without giving full clearance to exit or enter the vehicle properly as the other designed parking spaces.
My total medical expenses from ER and my surgery is $66, 964.02 (Admission No. [protected] bill amount $11, 056.00 and Admission No. [protected] bill amount $55, 908.02, verify with [protected]). For me to accumulate these expensive medical charges a serious condition of hazard had to be created and it was not my inattention negligence. If the cosmetic decoration landscape monument was not there in my path and area to clearly walk I would not have severely broken my ankle. It its clear evidence the cosmetic curbs and its very limited space to step or walk to enter the passenger side of the car caused the severe break in my ankle.
In conclusion, if I’m not properly compensated for my injuries, loos of work, emotional pain and suffering, I’m taking my case to the Supreme Court, I will rally financial support from all forms of social media. I will send this letter to every online Newspaper to expose the insurance corruption in wrongfully protecting commercial properties under code compliance's. I’m sure someone wants a story to build their credits on. My argument is a person can have a slip and fall on a residential property and sue to be compensated, but a person can slip on a commercial property and not be compensated because the property is protected by compliance code. This raises a series of questions and unethical insurance practices.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Alaina P. Mensah
[protected]

A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall
A Premises slip and fall

Responses

  • Ap
    apmensah Jun 13, 2016
    This comment was posted by
    a verified customer
    Verified customer

    My violation: Joe Chu had already pre-judged my case based on my pictures and had already concluded prior to me calling the property owner McLaughlin was not liable or at fault because he is under compliance with Sacramento County codes in having the decorated, cosmetic landscape monuments.
    My response to Joe Chu: Codes change every year. One will not know of a noncompliance issue until a tragic accident or critical accident occurs and is reported to the county inspectors and code enforcement which brings about a change in codes. Bumpers and traffic lights are not implemented until several deaths have occurred and residents then petition for safety regulations.
    Discrimination: Joe Chu told me if I was handicap and had slipped and fell then they would be liable. I should not have to identify myself as handicap to be compensated for an accident that clearly created a condition of hazard and endangerment by their cosmetic, decoration landscape monument. This is clearly discrimination.
    My Violation: Joe Chu did not take the time to properly investigate my case. When I gave him my response, he became very angry, upset and told me there was no further need to send in my medical records because was making a decision and was denying my claim on April 13.
    A denial letter was mailed indicating their investigation indicates our insured took reasonable care to inspect and maintain the premises. My response to this is: maintaining and cleaning the property is totally different from creating a condition of hazard. Again, one will not know a condition of hazard is created until an accident happens and is reported. Their conclusion is there is no apparent defect or issue in the loss area. My response is: there is no apparent defect or issue in the loss area when road bumps and traffic light are implemented. It’s implemented due to several deaths taking place and or critical injuries. Their conclusion is: The conditions are open and oblivious. It appears the proximate cause is due to your inattention: My response: inattention means my negligence. It is not my negligence you chose to put a decorative, cosmetic landscape monument that evidently took up the full entrance of the front right passenger door without giving full clearance to exit or enter the vehicle properly as the other designed parking spaces.
    My total medical expenses from ER and my surgery is $66, 964.02 (Admission No. [protected] bill amount $11, 056.00 and Admission No. [protected] bill amount $55, 908.02, verify with [protected]). For me to accumulate these expensive medical charges a serious condition of hazard had to be created and it was not my inattention negligence. If the cosmetic decoration landscape monument was not there in my path and area to clearly walk I would not have severely broken my ankle. It its clear evidence the cosmetic curbs and its very limited space to step or walk to enter the passenger side of the car caused the severe break in my ankle.
    In conclusion, if I’m not properly compensated for my injuries, loos of work, emotional pain and suffering, I’m taking my case to the Supreme Court, I will rally financial support from all forms of social media. I will send this letter to every online Newspaper to expose the insurance corruption in wrongfully protecting commercial properties under code compliance's. I’m sure someone wants a story to build their credits on. My argument is a person can have a slip and fall on a residential property and sue to be compensated, but a person can slip on a commercial property and not be compensated because the property is protected by compliance code. This raises a series of questions and unethical insurance practices.

    0 Votes

Post your comment

    By clicking Submit you are agreeing to the Complaints Board’s Terms and Conditions

    IN THE NEWS

    Unhappy consumers gather online at Complaintsboard.com and have already logged thousands of complaints.
    If you see dozens of complaints about a certain company on ComplaintsBoard, walk away.
    One of the largest consumer sites online. Posting here your concerns means good exposure for your issues.
    A consumer site aimed at exposing unethical companies and business practices.
    ComplaintsBoard is a good source for product and company gripes from especially dissatisfied people.
    You'll definitely get some directions on how customer service can best solve your problem.
    Do a little research on the seller. Visit consumer complaint websites like ComplaintsBoard.