1. Travelers Insurance Company, representing Mr. Jay ** and the City of Burlington, failed to negotiate fairly and reasonably for reparation regarding the "Personal Injury Claim" portion as set out in the plaintiff's demand letter of the 30th of October 2011.
2. In September Mr. Jay ** of Travelers Insurance, who titles himself "Technical Specialist", acting for the defendants, made an offer of $4,000 (over the phone) in respect of the Personal Injury portion of the claim **. The plaintiff agreed to Travelers sending the release forms and the offer they had made in writing, which they did on the 23rd of September. On receipt of the offer, it was extremely unclear as to just what the $4,000 related to, and a request was made in writing on the 23rd of September for clarification and a breakdown of the offer. On the 28th of September Mr. Jay ** called and left a message seeming to imply that he believed we had reached a verbal agreement of $4,000 when in actual fact our agreement was that he send the information regarding the offer of $4,000. On the 7th of October, the plaintiff again sent an email asking for a breakdown of the offer and also asking for acknowledgment of receipt of that email. On October 7th Mr. Jay ** again called on the phone and left a message asking the plaintiff to call him back. At this point the plaintiff emailed Mr. Jay ** and asked him to communicate anything of consequence in writing, as he sensed Jay's reticence to set down anything clearly for the two interested parties to negotiate.
3. This request seemed to initiate a sever lack of response from Travelers Insurance, and the email of October 7th asking for a breakdown of the offer was resent on October 13th when Mr. Jay ** had again tried to call the plaintiff via the telephone.
4. On the 15th of October the plaintiff contacted another member of the Travelers Insurance Company, a Ms. H., who had previously assisted him with the "Property Damage" portion of his claim, to ask if she could send the name, address, and email address of Jay's manager as he was not replying to the plaintiff's communications. She did not reply.
5. Mr. Jay **, responding, sent a one sentence email two days later on the 17th of October, saying he would send something in writing confirming his previous settlement offer.
6. On the 28th of October the plaintiff received in the mail a short letter confirming the $4,000 offer, with no breakdown of any sort, along with associated release forms.
7. The plaintiff again emailed asking yet again for a breakdown and also resent the previous email requesting clarification. He also pointed out he had sent similar requests on the 23rd and 28th of September and also on the 7th and 13th of October.
8. Mr. Jay ** then responded on the 28th of October saying that $402 is for out of pocket medical expenses and the rest ($3,598) is for your pain and suffering.
9. The plaintiff immediately emailed back on the 28th October and informed Mr. Jay ** that this did not appear a fair and reasonable reparation for all the pain, discomfort, and disruption to his life, especially in the first 15 days following the accident.
10. Mr. Jay ** replied that he did not agree with the plaintiff's valuations in an email of the 28th October.
11. On the 30th of October the plaintiff set out his claim for $6,402.00 in the form of a demand letter, outlining just what each aspect of the injuries he had suffered he believed was worthy of compensation with an associated amount and asked Mr. Jay ** to point out which aspects with associated amounts he believed were not reasonable. Plaintiff was asking him to respond within 7 business days.
12. On the 4th of November Mr. Jay ** emailed asking for documentation regarding the value of the damaged clothing/bedding and photographs of the scars incurred.
13. Photographs were submitted on the 4th of November along with explanations regarding damaged clothing/bedding.
14. On the 14th of November the Plaintiff made a request via email asking for a written update of the insurance company's deliberations regarding the claims in the plaintiff's demand letter.
15. On the 21st of November a further request was made asking Mr. Jay ** to reply to the plaintiff's demand letter of the 30th of October and the email of the 14th of November; the request also stated that should they not reply within 48 hours, the plaintiff would be forced to submit summons papers to the court as it would appear that they were not negotiating in good faith and for any resolution to occur beyond that point, they would have to include legal costs on top of the amount outlined in the demand letter.
16. Mr. Jay ** did not reply to the letter of the 30th October or the 14th or 21st of November until Monday the 5th of December. He was making an offer in writing of $5050. It is interesting to note here, that up to this email, the subject title of Jay's emails had usually been "Claim **"; however, the subject title now changed to for the first time to "** v City of Burlington." The summons was sent out on the 1st of December and would certainly have been with Travelers' before or on the 5th of December.
17. On Wednesday 7th of December Mr. Jay ** emailed the plaintiff saying he was now in receipt of the complaint filed against the City of Burlington, seeming to imply that he had sent his offer of December 5th before receiving the summons. But he is saying that the $5050 which he had offered on Monday was for more than the small claim amount of $5,000 and would the plaintiff now withdraw his complaint?
18. The plaintiff believes this is yet another example of the insurance company's inability to negotiate in good faith and a cynical attempt to obfuscate and manipulate the situation so that they do not appear to be at fault, and to avoid the responsibility of $25.00 of the court submission fee of $75.00 to boot.
Mr. Jay ** of Travelers Insurance Company has done everything possible not to facilitate a reasonable, responsible negotiation throughout this negotiation. Not replying and refusing to be clear about all aspects of the process of reparation in this claim, forcing the claimant to use the Small Claims Court to get them to respond at all. This will probably result in the court only being able to force Travelers to pay the maximum of the Small Claims Court ($5,000) when the claim is for much more.
