Independent Home Insurance Reviews

Intact Insurance Home Insurance Reviews

(3 reviews)
This page has been viewed by:
2,232
consumers
Category: Bikes, Belongings
(2.1 out of 5 stars)
Customer Service:
Value for Money:
Claim Experience:
 

Tenant insurance

 
(2.0 out of 5 stars)
by JoshP Aug 14, 2017
...No slight on the customer service side as they were great. However, when i purchased tenant insurance for 40$ a month throughout this past year and had a few tools and a bike stolen from the garage, I was informed there would be a $500 deductible due on $630. It's a good idea if you are prone to starting fires or live in a flood plain, but don't expect it to cover your run of the day item theft. If the deductible had been discussed at the time of purchasing the policy I never would have went for it...
0 of 0 people found this review helpful. Did you?
Did you know that Ontarians pay, on average, $47/month in homeowners insurance? Looking to change your home insurance or simply want ensure that you do not overpay? Our home insurance quotes are among the most competitive.
 

Intacts lacks ethics & Morals

 
(1.0 out of 5 stars)
by Angry beyond belief May 18, 2017
If I could give Intact a - rating, I would. After the loss of our home, garage and all contents in a wildfire event, Intact opened a claim immediately. If not for the fact that it was a nationally recognized catastrophic event well within the public's, I feel that this would have been a nightmare to deal with as well. How bad are they? Where do I start? Our first encounter with an Intact representative was our adjuster. She explained that it was Intact policy that items such as fridge, stove, dishwasher, custom blinds etc, pretty much "what ever you would normally leave in a house when you sold it would be covered under house rebuild. The adjuster gave us a nice glossy phamplet stating as much. After submitting our schedule of loss for our contents, which showed an $80,000 loss on our part, our adjuster told us that due to the fact that "people in our particular region had "upscale appliances, intact would now be submitting our appliances and custom blinds in to our contents coverage which would have resulted in an addition $20,000 loss on our part. This decision was only made by Intact after they were provided our contents list. Apperntly, changing the "rules mid game is alright if you are an insurance firm". Second major issue arose when I analyzed our policy and noticed that we had been charged for a provision that allowed for a cash settlement. When I inquired about this provision , it was stated that I was not eligible for this provision. I then argued as to why we weee being charged for it then. Third major issue arose when we provided economic evidence of a specific type of inflation that results only after catastrophic events. Based on the standard provision of "inflation protection", our limits of insurance were subject to charge based on the "inflation rate" at play. After repeated shady responses for Intact representatives, basically, they did not acknowledge our concerns or questions what so ever and just pressed forward with out explaination or cause, I researched and read the intro to insurance law and the first principal of insurance law states, "if any provision in a policy is ambiguous by nature, the definition that is in the best interest of the policy holder is used as the contract/policy is written by the insurance firm and it is their due diligence to explicit in their meanings. This became an issue as rebuilding costs increased over 100% due to the magnitude of the catastrophic event, the already hyperinflated economy in this particular region, the remoteness of the affected region and the fact that the house building industry has been flatlined due to the current economic recession. Intact instead offered 1% inflation as this was "national average" but we were not experiencing "national average" inflation but rather demand surge inflation. Forth and most aggravating issue we have encountered was after filing our proof of loss and commencing legal proceedings, a year in to this process, after receiving delayed and overdue by sometimes 5-6 months ALE payments the entire time, resulting in immense financial pressure, Intact stated that they would cease all ALE payments from this point onward and withhold any and all other coverages due to the fact that we would be going to court to argue the amounts. Even though this is a clear breach of contract, Intact is well aware of the fact that it will take close to 8-9 months to seek an intermediate court date to get a ruling on the ALE payments that we would most likely never get to as we will have been bankrupted by that time. How this can be considered "negotiating in good faith" is beyond me. If this is how they treat customers who have lost everything in the world, I can not imagine how they would treat those who sustained smaller losses. Horrible firm and STAY AWAY!!!!!!!
0 of 0 people found this review helpful. Did you?