Business ProfileforN.C. Grange Mutual Insurance Company

We had lightning damage around 3 weeks ago. Anne B*** told me since I dispute the value of my TV I have to send dispute in writing and get an expert. Not sure what that means. Can’t get her to explain the expert comment. She never told me where to address my dispute. So I called Pamela Greene twice and emailed her. No response. It is a shame we have paid our premiums and get a ridiculous offer when we have a claim. And Mrs B*** or Mrs G***** will respond and call us back. So long NC Grange, take my business elsewhere

A Loss Notice from the insured’s agent was received June 29 indicating lightning from storm damaged garage door, security cameras, TV, phone and receptacles on June 27.  The loss was assigned to investigator who deals specifically with electronics claims who made contact within only a few hours of the loss notice and an appointment was scheduled with the insured for the next week.

On the date of the scheduled inspection, insured emailed photo of the back of the TV with model number.  At the inspection, the investigator found that the garage door was not damaged, but that there were two items that failed operational testing and two that would not power on.  Replacement of those four items was recommended and an estimate for replacement was provided. The Replacement costs value of all four items combined as estimated by the investigator was less than the insured’s policy deductible of $2500.00.  NC Grange emailed the investigator report the day following the inspection.  

The insured responded with regard to the garage door that it had been repaired the day following the lightning strike and provided a receipt for the repair.  After adding that amount to the other replacement estimates, NCGM issued an indemnity check for the amount of loss in excess of the deductible.    However, the insured further disputed the replacement cost estimate for the TV.  The insured claimed to have bought the 75 inch smart TV in 2016 paying $4,800.00 for it.  The investigators documented pricing for replacing that TV with one of the same brand in like kind and quality was $1434.99 based upon its research of available TVs locally.  The insured provided a photo of the model of the TV and NCGM asked the investigator to re-check replacement cost value using the model number provided by the insured.  The investigator did so and responded that its replacement cost estimate was still appropriate for a Sony 75” Bravia 4K LED Smart TV as the insured had.  The insured followed up on Friday, July 14 at 7:23 PM with an email asking about status, sending shortly thereafter that night a screen shot of an out-of-stock 75” Sony Bravia Smart TV from Walmart at $4,415.57.  The insured followed those Friday night emails up with an email on Monday morning (June 17).  That morning (June 17), NCGM sent the screen shot provided by the insured to the investigator asking for re-confirmation of its replacement cost.  NCGM additionally responded to the insured that afternoon providing him a copy of the check sent the insured wherein the explanation of payment was detailed.  Response was received from the investigator detailing how the replacement cost pricing was estimated with investigator providing links to the same TV being replaced (75” Sony Bravia Smart TV) at Best Buy and direct from Sony and explaining that its replacement cost pricing was the median between those. The email from the investigator was received at NCGM the afternoon of June 18.  During the afternoon and evening of the 18th, the insured emailed NCGM six times and NCGM responding that it had been awaiting response from the investigator on pricing and providing him the links to the pricing available and used by the investigator.  The BBB complaint to which this response is made was evidently that same evening.