S R M Contracting & Paving

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The party *** *** had told me in February, the party who drove the vehicle was being disciplined for his actions in the incident.
Mr***, refused to provide me with his insurance or any other information as required by law when an accident occurs.
Mr*** was provided with a picture of the damage to my vehicle and also of the vehicle's license plateI called the company immediately and reported the accidentIt was only after Mr***'s refusal to comply with insurance information and numerous requests, I had to seek help through my insurance company.
According to the Deptof Financial responsibility in Sacramento, Mr*** and SRM are not self insured as they claim nor have the posted a bond for self insurance.
Mr***'s careless drive caused over $worth of damage to my vehicleMy step with the aid of my insurance company is to file in small claims court in San Diego and file suit against *** *** and SRM.
Regards,
*** ***

Att: *** ***
Dear Ms***,
I am sending this email on behalf of Bill Butler and SRM
Contracting &
Paving in response to a complaint that was filed with the Revdex.com against SRM
SRM denied this claim because there has been no evidence
that proves that SRM or our employee is at fault or guilty of causing the
damage that the claimant allegesI reviewed all of the evidence and the
claimant’s account of the incidentThere are inconsistencies in his account
and evidence providedI spoke to SRM’s employee that is accused of these
actions and he said that he had no knowledge of any incident until we
questioned him about it
It is for these reasons that SRM denied the claim
Regards,
*** ***
Project Manager

Review: A vehicle driven by SMR contract and paving, while on the 15 south freeway, had a half filled cup of drink in a supergulp 44 ounce leave it's driver side and hit my 2012 camaro on the hood, scratching the center of it and then rebound to hit my windshield leaving three scratches. The driver refused to pull over as we followed him, so we pulled up next to him, got his business name which was on the door panel and then pulled behind him and took a picture of his license plate. The vehicle was not insured, by any company in California, and according to [redacted], the company is "SELF INSURED". After speaking to a person a the company who assured me this would be taken care of, I then spoke with [redacted] who asked me for my information, driver's license and vehicle registration, but he refused to provide me with any insurance information. My vehicle was fixed at All Star collision in Corona and came to over $200 for the removal of the scratches on the hood. The windshield has yet to be fixed. Mr. [redacted] notified my insurance company on 5/6/15 that he was not accepting responsibility in the case. This was after he told me the driver of the vehicle had been disciplined previously. Mr. [redacted] refused to cooperate in any manner, except to state I had to fill out a claim form which asked for personal information that I felt should not be on an accident form.Desired Settlement: Mr. [redacted] to pay All Star Collision $200 plus for fixing my hood and then schedule an appointment to have my windshield fixed at Mr. [redacted]'s company's expense which is still unrepaired.

Business

Response:

Att: [redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted],

I am sending this email on behalf of Bill Butler and SRM Contracting &

Paving in response to a complaint that was filed with the Revdex.com against SRM.

SRM denied this claim because there has been no evidence

that proves that SRM or our employee is at fault or guilty of causing the

damage that the claimant alleges. I reviewed all of the evidence and the

claimant’s account of the incident. There are inconsistencies in his account

and evidence provided. I spoke to SRM’s employee that is accused of these

actions and he said that he had no knowledge of any incident until we

questioned him about it.

It is for these reasons that SRM denied the claim.

Regards,

Project Manager

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The party [redacted] had told me in February, the party who drove the vehicle was being disciplined for his actions in the incident.