E-MAIL FROM ANTONIO DATED 9/8/13 TO JOVANNA ON A LETTER ALLEGEDLY SENT BY JOVANNA WITH DOCUMENT LABELLED BUENSUCESO.pdf but when I received the letter postmarked 8/23/13 it contained a letter not dated 8/23/13 but a different letter dated 8/20/13.
FOOLING ME AROUND
Inbox | x |
| 9/8/13  | | ||
September 8, 2013
Dear Ms. Jovanna Naranjo,
Good morning.
May I humbly inform you that you are making a fool of me again. Let me point out
on your e-mail dated September 3, 2013 you sent me a letter document dated
August 23, 2013 which you sent on August 23, 2013, as an attachment to your
e-mail titled BUENSUCESO.pdf but the letter which I received last week postmark
August 23, 2013 is not the copy of BUENSUCESO.pdf but a different letter ante
dated August 20, 2013. This is condemnable and appalling act.
I reject the truthfulness of the said letter, dated August 20, 2013 as this date does
not reflect the supposed date and content of the letter profounded on
BUENSUCESO.pdf.
Please see my illustration below for your perusal and appreciation.
I want to convey to you my absolute disapproval on the manner you are dealing
with me. You know I have been waiting for so long for the resolution of my
diminished value claim, but you are obviously resorting to dirty tactics like sending
me a letter, which is written today but would appear written days back in time,
to cover up your error done in the present time.
Just in case, you still would want to have your technicians to check defects on my
vehicle as a requirement in the claim process, then please send me an e-mail
covering this request, and please include in your e-mail qualifications, licences and
certifications of your technicians who will be doing this inspection.
Also, please explain succeeding stages of the claim process and how long it could take.
Again, please expedite the process.
Thank you very much.
Cordially,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
NARANJO E-MAIL TO ANTONIO SHOWING THE POSTAL MAIL DOCUMENT
DATED 8/23/14 "BUENSUCESO.pdf " THROUGH E-MAIL ATTACHMENT
Dear Ms. Jovanna Naranjo,
Good morning.
May I humbly inform you that you are making a fool of me again. Let me point out
on your e-mail dated September 3, 2013 you sent me a letter document dated
August 23, 2013 which you sent on August 23, 2013, as an attachment to your
e-mail titled BUENSUCESO.pdf but the letter which I received last week postmark
August 23, 2013 is not the copy of BUENSUCESO.pdf but a different letter ante
dated August 20, 2013. This is condemnable and appalling act.
I reject the truthfulness of the said letter, dated August 20, 2013 as this date does
not reflect the supposed date and content of the letter profounded on
BUENSUCESO.pdf.
Please see my illustration below for your perusal and appreciation.
I want to convey to you my absolute disapproval on the manner you are dealing
with me. You know I have been waiting for so long for the resolution of my
diminished value claim, but you are obviously resorting to dirty tactics like sending
me a letter, which is written today but would appear written days back in time,
to cover up your error done in the present time.
Just in case, you still would want to have your technicians to check defects on my
vehicle as a requirement in the claim process, then please send me an e-mail
covering this request, and please include in your e-mail qualifications, licences and
certifications of your technicians who will be doing this inspection.
Also, please explain succeeding stages of the claim process and how long it could take.
Again, please expedite the process.
Thank you very much.
Cordially,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
NARANJO E-MAIL TO ANTONIO SHOWING THE POSTAL MAIL DOCUMENT
DATED 8/23/14 "BUENSUCESO.pdf " THROUGH E-MAIL ATTACHMENT
|  Sep 3 (5 days ago) | | ||
| ||||
 | BUENSUCESO.pdf 287K View Download |
==============================
BUENSUCESO.pdf
==============================
LETTER ENVELOP POSTMARKED AUGUST 23, 2013
DIFFERENT LETTER, NOT BUENSUCESO.pdf
| 9/9/13 | | ||
Mr. Buensuceso,
I sent out a contact letter on 08/20 due to the fact that I was not able to reach you on your phone.
I then emailed you requesting to allow us to re-inspected your vehicle. You were in disapproval to
have the vehicle re-inspected which is not a mandatory request but was a courtesy to you. At that
point I sent out letter on 08/23 informing you that your policy does not cover Diminished Value. I
again sent a letter re-instating your policy information on 09/04. Please see all attached letters I
am referring to. My file is now closed any other questions in regards of your claim please contact
Mark Schlick.
Thank you,
Jovanna Naranjo
| 9/9/13 | | ||
September 9, 2013
Dear Jovanna Naranjo,
After the series of fooling around and delaying tactics and keeping me waiting in vain, you will just run
and hide and make me start all over again, this is not fair. It is not fair that you just toss me around from
one adjuster to another. I am asking from you the steps on the claim process and how long it could take
to know how much time I would be waiting. Again, please do not run and hide.
and hide and make me start all over again, this is not fair. It is not fair that you just toss me around from
one adjuster to another. I am asking from you the steps on the claim process and how long it could take
to know how much time I would be waiting. Again, please do not run and hide.
I am asking from you that the technicians who would be inspecting the vehicle be certified on the tasks
they will be performing otherwise, if they were not certified then what is the use for them to have an
inspection of my vehicle when they are not capable of doing so. Again, I would like to reiterate, if you
need to reinspect the vehicle as a matter of procedural process, by all means do it.
they will be performing otherwise, if they were not certified then what is the use for them to have an
inspection of my vehicle when they are not capable of doing so. Again, I would like to reiterate, if you
need to reinspect the vehicle as a matter of procedural process, by all means do it.
According to you I am not entitled to diminished value claim why did not Mr. Jason Kenady inform me,
on August 9, 2013 when I initially brought the diminished value claim to his attention? And you,
on your part, why did you still asked for an inspection of my vehicle on the first place when as you said,
I am not entitled to diminished value claim? Why keep me waiting and fool me around?
on August 9, 2013 when I initially brought the diminished value claim to his attention? And you,
on your part, why did you still asked for an inspection of my vehicle on the first place when as you said,
I am not entitled to diminished value claim? Why keep me waiting and fool me around?
Your alibi that you tried and failed to contact me through the phone as a excuse for the delay is
unacceptable because I have a valid e-mail address with you and you are able to communicate clearly
with me through it.
unacceptable because I have a valid e-mail address with you and you are able to communicate clearly
with me through it.
Please have Mr. Jason Kenady, who I presumed to be your boss, to inform me of whoever adjuster he
would be assigning to replace you and not you to to just referring me to Mr. Mark Schlick.
would be assigning to replace you and not you to to just referring me to Mr. Mark Schlick.
| 9/9/13 | | ||
Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
This is in response to your email. I believe you may have misunderstood me. When I indicated that my
file is closed I was referring to the Diminished Value claim. Not the entire claim. I apologize if that is what
I portrayed. To my knowledge Jason Kenady will not be re-assigning an adjuster to your file. You will
continue dealing with Mark Schlick who is the main file handler in your claim. I am the Diminished Value
claim adjuster and at this point per my letters we are respectfully denying the Diminished Value claim under
your policy limitation.
file is closed I was referring to the Diminished Value claim. Not the entire claim. I apologize if that is what
I portrayed. To my knowledge Jason Kenady will not be re-assigning an adjuster to your file. You will
continue dealing with Mark Schlick who is the main file handler in your claim. I am the Diminished Value
claim adjuster and at this point per my letters we are respectfully denying the Diminished Value claim under
your policy limitation.
In regards of my original request to re-inspect the vehicle again it was a courtesy we were extending to you as
our policy holder. All we wanted to accomplish was to make sure your vehicle was repaired properly because
of your diminished value concern. We are more than willing to go out and re-inspect your vehicle just let us
know where and when we can inspect your vehicle. Again this would only be to confirm that repairs were
completed properly, it will not indicate any change on Allstate’s decision to deny your Diminished Value
claim.
our policy holder. All we wanted to accomplish was to make sure your vehicle was repaired properly because
of your diminished value concern. We are more than willing to go out and re-inspect your vehicle just let us
know where and when we can inspect your vehicle. Again this would only be to confirm that repairs were
completed properly, it will not indicate any change on Allstate’s decision to deny your Diminished Value
claim.
If you have any more questions in regards of your Diminished Value claim please call me at 626-848-8505.
Jovanna Naranjo
