And apparently Zurich doesn't want us to tell you
that they may not be the cheapest option because Zurich sent this letter in December 2007 (Click
here to read it.)
containing threats (an false allegations) to take legal action if we don't stop
advertising that there are other, less expensive options to Zurich.
Zurich says in their letter
that we are confusing the public into thinking that we are affiliated with
Zurich when we use the
Zurich name to say that we are less expensive than Zurich. Well, we give the public a little more
credit for the ability to understand that if we say we are less
expensive than Zurich, then we are
not affiliated with Zurich.
We also have proof that Zurich has done other things to hurt our agency
for no apparent reason other than the fact that we advertise that we have less expensive
options for consumers; and they don't want us advertising this. For example,
we have technology reports provided by THREE DIFFERENT independent
third parties
that show that Zurich, its
representatives, its attorneys, and its other "spies" have
consistently searched the internet for our paid advertising and clicked on it several times per day. We
assume that they do this just to inflate our cost of advertising on the internet.
We also have proof that Zurich told the Virginia Bureau of Insurance
in 2004 that Chase Carmen Hunter did not refund premium funds to a consumer
in Michigan.
But we had the cancelled check showing that the premium was refunded
within 21 days.
So we proved that this was not true; and when the Virginia Bureau of Insurance
investigated as a result of Zurich's false report, the matter was promptly
resolved. We also have proof that 18 months after this matter was resolved,
Zurich falsely reported to Chase Carmen Hunter's
bank that Chase Carmen Hunter fraudulently deposited a premium refund
check related to this same Michigan consumer. The bank then withdrew these funds
from Chase Carmen Hunter's bank and returned the funds to the Zurich subsidiary that issued the
original check 18 months earlier. As anyone with a checking account knows, if you
have an unexpected withdrawal from your checking account, other checks written in good faith
may bounce. If you are an insurance agency handling customer funds and
your checks start to bounce,
this will likely result in the launching of an investigation by insurance regulators
into possible mishandling of customer funds. So we think it is possible that Zurich's
false reporting to this bank about fraudulent depositing of this refund check was designed
only to provoke investigations by insurance regulators into Chase Carmen Hunter. But
we do not mishandle customer funds, we had plenty of money in the bank to cover this check, we
had no checks bounce, and a subsequent investigation
showed that Zurich's claim was not valid and Zurich was required to repay the funds
to Chase Carmen Hunter.
We also have proof that Zurich told a Connecticut consumer
in 2005 that Chase Carmen Hunter did not remit his premium funds to the insurer (which was a subsidiary of
Zurich). But we had the cancelled check
and proved that this was not true. So, when the Connecticut Department of Insurance
investigated, the matter was promptly resolved within 24 hours.
We are currently investigating another conspiracy of false reporting about
Chase Carmen Hunter. www.ChaseAgency.com, and Chase Financial Services Since 1993
to insurance regulators, the insurance industry, and consumer protection regulators
in March 2008. But you can rest assured that no harm will ever come to our agency
because it was established on an unshakable foundation of integrity.
Why is Zurich trying so hard to cause harm to a competitor? Is it because we
have always known that Zurich is not the only choice for builder's risk
insurance, we have always advertised this fact (even when we were
actively selling Zurich's builder's risk insurance), and they don't want
this information advertised?
The truth is that you have other options. We know this because we researched
and found
many other builder's risk products that consumers like. And we believe that the public
has a right to know the truth. We don't need to make false allegations and threaten to
sue our competition to secure our success because we know that when
you have what consumers want and you have integrity; you can never lose.
FIRST EXAMPLE
A new construction project valued at $1,807,000 was quoted in May 2007 by Zurich
at a rate of 25 cents per $100 of coverage.
Our rate was 25% less at 19 cents per $100 of coverage.
For example, a $1,807,000 construction project
would cost:
$4517.50 plus fees with Zurich
Only $3469 (plus $39 broker fee) with ChaseAgency.com
The savings is at least 25% over Zurich. This is just one
example.
Rates vary from state to state and county to county.
A new construction project valued at $750,000 in Los Angeles, California,
was quoted in July 2007 by Zurich
at a rate of 70.7 cents per $100 of coverage.
Our rate was 71% less at 20.2 cents per $100 of coverage.
Zurich charges an extra premium for projects in Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Orange County, and Alameda County. But
we don't. Zurich's brokers often charge excessive broker fees in California and we don't.
Rates vary from state to state and county to county.
Chase Carmen Hunter, www.ChaseAgency.com, and Chase Financial Services Since 1993 offer services to residents of any country in the world including the following states of the United States of America:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Not all products are available in all states.
