Customer ReviewsforCincinnati Financial Corporation

Our family had Cincinnati Insurance for 52 years. We paid approximately $6,000 every year. (Do the math- over $312,000) Never ever missed a payment. And we needed a new roof after years of wind and storm damage. They sent a couple of inspectors out to the house that approved the new roof. However, after we planned for the new roof, they sent out some 18 yr old kid that told us that Cincinnati Insurance was not responsible. That young inspector told us that it was vandalism from whomever laid down the shingles. (What?) But even agreeing to that absurd analysis, we had a clause in the contract that covered vandalism! They still refused to help !So whatever you doPlease never ever get insurance with these folks. Put your money under your mattress or trust a different home insurance company. Please call, text me, or email me for further details.* ********

Please consider this correspondence as response to the February 27, 2024, review posted by Mr. *** *********  

Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) greatly appreciates Mr. ******** bringing this matter to our attention. Following notification of the review by Mr. ******** a detailed examination of the information contained within the claim file was conducted. Our attention was directed specifically on the inspection report completed by the roof inspection service, ******* Claims Consultants. The information available in the report indicates the claim for wind damage to the roof presented on behalf of ***** ******** should be considered a covered event.

Therefore, CIC will reach out to Mr. ******** as quickly as possible to advise we would like to achieve an amicable resolution.

Our roofing contractor left us with a visibly shoddy roof (exposed wood, missing flashing). After going back and forth with the roofing company in an attempt to get them to honor their own 5-year warranty, we finally needed to file claim with Cincinnati, their liability carrier. I dealt with an adjuster, Chad. First, they sent out a ladder company who said that the missing flashing was the leak source. Two weeks later - the claim was denied. After asking for a reason, Chad told me it was because the roofing company provided a document showing they weren’t paid for flashing. The roofing company provided Chad with the estimate - rather than the final invoice, which is what we actually paid, which DOES include flashing. We even forwarded an email where the owner of the company states “we installed flashing so there won’t be leaks in the future” as he attaches the invoice. After much back and forth, the case is reopened. Two of our own contractors by this point agree it is the flashing. Chad tells me none of these people are “experts”, that he’s going to hire an engineer. The engineer comes, tells me there’s clearly water leaking, he can’t tell from where, and that we should do a water test by pulling a hose on top of our 3 story, gabled roof. I ask Chad to schedule a water test for us with the engineer. Engineer calls me and says they’ve been googling all day and can’t find a water test for our type of roof, but can come by when it rains. They come by when it had been raining the day before, engineer says that it looks like it was installed by a 12 year old and that flashing is causing the leaks, says he’ll put it in the report. Two weeks later, Chad tells us the engineer found no evidence of water damage and he will not release the report to us. There has been no resolution despite the roofing company blatantly lying multiple times, in writing. Chad’s manager, Mike, also accused me of not being married to my husband, in a bid not to speak to me anymore about the home.

In this subject claim, the roofing contractor (Roofer) was contracted by ************** for a job in *********, ********. ************ claimed that the interior water damage was resulted from the improper installation of the roof by the Roofer and that the Roofer ignored the responsibility. After the notice of claim was reported to Cincinnati, a claim was set up and an adjuster was assigned to investigate this claim. An inspection was conducted by ******** ***** an independent company. Based on the findings from the report and information that the Roofer did not perform work near where the interior damage was found, a letter denying liability was issued.Upon receipt of additional information, investigation continued with a second inspection conducted by Building Envelope **************** (BEC), another independent company. Below are the conclusions and opinions from ***:The overall condition of the subject roof can be described as consistent with its age, composition and method of installation. No open seams in the low slope roof areas were observed. No punctures in the membranes were observed during the inspection. No shingles were missing or dislodged shingles were observed. The interior showed no sign of moisture prior to or during significant rain fall. The exposed rotted rafters were dry to the touch and had no significant moisture content when checked with a hand-held moisture meter.It is BECs opinion the installation of the roof cover is not responsible for the reported interior leaking. Based on the conclusion of this inspection, a denial of liability letter was again issued. There were communications between the Roofer and ************** regarding various issues with the siding, fascia board and chimney that were not part of the roof. In the Roofers response to the ******** BBB Complaint, *** explained that the leaks were from the chimney and the siding at different times; but the leaks were not from the roof.A subrogation package was received from Travelers Personal Insurance Company which is the Homeowners Insurance carrier. The Statement of Repair Roofer provided in the package addressed the issues with the fascia board and the chimney that led to water intrusion. The amount paid by Travelers is $2,357.22 which includes the $1,500.00 deductible. This payment suggests that the damages have been repaired and ************ has been made whole. Normal procedure in handling general liability claims involves fact gathering through investigation in order to determine liability. After the cause of damage is determined, it is necessary to determine if a duty has been breached and if so, whether there was any foreseeability that the damages would have occurred. If it is determined that Ram is legally liable to the damages, actual cash value (ACV) of the damages will only be considered which is replacement cost less depreciation in liability claims.Based on the inspection reports from both ******** and BEC, the water damage was not caused by the work performed by ***, and therefore, **************** is not legally liable for any issues or damages.

This is inaccurate. We have the report from SEEKNOW where the flashing is marked as the leak source. Your client, Ram Roofing, installed the flashing. He provided an estimate (the document that showed he did no work in the area where it was leaking) and withheld the invoice we paid - where he clearly states that he installed the flashing so there would be no leaks. This was nearly **** dollars more than the initial estimate he provided as proof.As stated already, your engineer came out and explained the issues with the roof were due to the flashing at the chimney and that all of our water damage was the result of poor installation. There is exposed wood on the roof, missing flashing, and sections of improperly laid shingles. Your engineer came out on a day where there was 0 rain, which would certainly explain why his hand held meter showed no water. You can walk into the room and see where the water has leaked. I do not need a meter to show it either way. Your engineer is also the one who said they didnt know of a water test to do and had been googling to look for one all day.We have several reports both from SEEKNOW, the inspector of which I have spoken to separately who stated it was due to the improper installation, emails back and forth with other contractors who have inspected the roof as well. The estimate to fix the damage is around ****** dollars because there are so many issues with your clients roof installation. Your client lied multiple times. Your withholding of the full report says enough - if that is all it said, you would have released it immediately to us.

This is inaccurate. We have the report from SEEKNOW where the flashing is marked as the leak source. Your client, Ram Roofing, installed the flashing. He provided an estimate (the document that showed he did no work in the area where it was leaking) and withheld the invoice we paid - where he clearly states that he installed the flashing so there would be no leaks. This was nearly **** dollars more than the initial estimate he provided as proof.As stated already, your engineer came out and explained the issues with the roof were due to the flashing at the chimney and that all of our water damage was the result of poor installation. There is exposed wood on the roof, missing flashing, and sections of improperly laid shingles. Your engineer came out on a day where there was 0 rain, which would certainly explain why his hand held meter showed no water. You can walk into the room and see where the water has leaked. I do not need a meter to show it either way. Your engineer is also the one who said they didnt know of a water test to do and had been googling to look for one all day.We have several reports both from SEEKNOW, the inspector of which I have spoken to separately who stated it was due to the improper installation, emails back and forth with other contractors who have inspected the roof as well. The estimate to fix the damage is around ****** dollars because there are so many issues with your clients roof installation. Your client lied multiple times. Your withholding of the full report says enough - if that is all it said, you would have released it immediately to us.

CSU and Debbie G*****, corporate billing anaylst, cannot provide a breakdown of prorated refund amounts. They refuse to provide any documentation other than a random number through email stating that is the only recipt they can provide. They want you to believe that this random number is the correct amount without any breakdown or proof of used premium. Unaccaptbale from such a large company.

We contacted the customer and provided the calculations.