The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Reviews
Jun 27, 2015
As a new small business, we contacted The Hartford for Workers Compensation coverage for our single "employee". After a year we were audited, which we know now is a routine practice. We contacted the Hartford for assistance in filling out their audit form which is very ambiguous at times and complicated, confusing and contradictory for the average layman. Shortly thereafter, we received a bill notice that we owed the Hartford approx $2,000 in overages claiming that we had originally "under-reported" our employee(s) wages and our premium was being increased going forward from approx $150 / mo to $650 / month. Needless to say we were shocked and we immediately contacted them figuring this was someone’s honest mistake somewhere and that cooler heads would prevail and that it was a misunderstanding somewhere that would be corrected. After numerous phone calls, we were then asked to submit our questions in writing, which we did and were then shuffled around and around from dept. to dept. often times with no response for long periods of time. We were then instructed to file a formal dispute of the audit and we complied with all of their regulations and requirements for this process and our audit appeal was repeatedly denied. We tried repeatedly hoping to get some level headed person who would listen to reason but couldn’t find any such person anywhere in this organization. We were then turned over to collections and now we are now being threatened with a lawsuit by their Attorney.
Here's where the problem comes in: When the policy was created, it was created in the name of our business and my wife's name, although the business itself was and is a family owned business with the members including Myself, my Wife, and our Children. The Hartford claims that we were required to "exempt" any individuals from coverage at the time the policy was created other than the named insured “my Wife”. We contacted the Hartford and asked for clarification when filling this form out and explained this fact to them. They suggested leaving it blank which also made sense to us at the time because owners of the business are not "required" by Nevada law to be "included" in workers compensation coverage. Since we were not required by law to include them into coverage, we didn’t see any reason to “exclude” them since they weren’t automatically “included” in the first place. According to them, this policy only covered my wife’s employees and subcontractors under coverage which according to them included me and my kids too since we were paid by the company throughout the year. Just out of curiosity, since our kids and I were "supposedly" covered in the policy according to the Hartford, do you think they would've been willing to pay an injury claim reported by my Wife on behalf of our kids or I? I’m sure that would’ve looked pretty suspicious and most certainly would’ve been “denied”.
At any rate, on box (9) of their Workers Compensation Payroll report form which was later used in their audit asks if we use Non-Employee Labor and if yes, to please list the names of those whom you DO NOT have certificates of workers compensation coverage. This is very confusing as a small business owner who truthfully answered this question as "yes" because our children and I are not considered "employees" as owners of the business. As a result of this fact, none of us had a certificate of workers comp coverage nor were we required to do so by law.
Further complicating matters, box (5) on their Workers Comp Payroll report states to complete for officers, members, partners and proprietors and requires a % of stock owned. There were only (2) spaces provided here and we didn't put too much thought into it because as the Hartford was aware, we are an LLC co. not a Corporation and as a result do not own stock. The form says is it requires a % of stock owned, so we listed my wife and I as each as having a 50/50% ownership instead of specifically itemizing a % of stock owned by each owner which included our kids and once again there was no stock in existence to list. We tried repeatedly to explain this during the audit resolution process and to anyone who would listen but it didn't matter to anyone at the Hartford.
Additionally, box #7 states to list the total gross payroll for all employee(s) for the audit period shown above: (including officers, members, partners, proprietors, and all commissions, draws and bonuses). This was also very confusing due to the fact that box (5) of their form asks for a list of Officers, Members, Partners and Proprietors and then states (Do not list in Box 6). Box 6 states to list all employees and payroll information but then states “do not include in Box (5)”.
Box (7) states to provide the total gross payroll for all employees for the audit period shown above (referencing box 6) (including officers, members, partners, proprietors, and all commissions, draws and bonuses). We listed $XXX as “employee wages” in box (7) however this amount did not include wages for officers, members, partners, proprietors, commissions draws or bonuses as box (5) said not to re-list the names in box (6) and therefore did not filter down to box (7). Our confusion on box (6) is evidenced by the two names scratched out on the form that we’ve previously submitted above the name “XXXXX”. Again this was very confusing and misleading as those of us with “ownership interest” in the LLC were not on “payroll” nor technically considered as “employees” nor were there any gross wages paid. Any amounts paid for these individuals with ownership interest were paid on a “draw / commission” basis, so those amounts were not listed in box 7.
We realize in hindsight that box (6) should've included the names of the owners and amounts paid for each, which we also tried repeatedly to correct during the audit review process but again our explanation was not listened to and we were denied.
I strongly recommend to anyone considering this company or its services to think again. I don’t make it habit of writing lengthy reviews, especially negative ones but people deserve to know how this company treated us in this case. They give you forms to fill out that are impossible to fill out correctly and then they play “Gotcha” after the fact and rip you off. When you buy car insurance if you change something in your policy it goes into effect immediately and is reflected in your next upcoming bill. This is not the case with Worker’s compensation insurance. You give them an estimate of your payroll and be very very careful how you answer their questions or they can turn your answers back on you and make up that you owe ridiculous amounts of money after the fact.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Reviews
As a new small business, we contacted The Hartford for Workers Compensation coverage for our single "employee". After a year we were audited, which we know now is a routine practice. We contacted the Hartford for assistance in filling out their audit form which is very ambiguous at times and complicated, confusing and contradictory for the average layman. Shortly thereafter, we received a bill notice that we owed the Hartford approx $2,000 in overages claiming that we had originally "under-reported" our employee(s) wages and our premium was being increased going forward from approx $150 / mo to $650 / month. Needless to say we were shocked and we immediately contacted them figuring this was someone’s honest mistake somewhere and that cooler heads would prevail and that it was a misunderstanding somewhere that would be corrected. After numerous phone calls, we were then asked to submit our questions in writing, which we did and were then shuffled around and around from dept. to dept. often times with no response for long periods of time. We were then instructed to file a formal dispute of the audit and we complied with all of their regulations and requirements for this process and our audit appeal was repeatedly denied. We tried repeatedly hoping to get some level headed person who would listen to reason but couldn’t find any such person anywhere in this organization. We were then turned over to collections and now we are now being threatened with a lawsuit by their Attorney.
Here's where the problem comes in: When the policy was created, it was created in the name of our business and my wife's name, although the business itself was and is a family owned business with the members including Myself, my Wife, and our Children. The Hartford claims that we were required to "exempt" any individuals from coverage at the time the policy was created other than the named insured “my Wife”. We contacted the Hartford and asked for clarification when filling this form out and explained this fact to them. They suggested leaving it blank which also made sense to us at the time because owners of the business are not "required" by Nevada law to be "included" in workers compensation coverage. Since we were not required by law to include them into coverage, we didn’t see any reason to “exclude” them since they weren’t automatically “included” in the first place. According to them, this policy only covered my wife’s employees and subcontractors under coverage which according to them included me and my kids too since we were paid by the company throughout the year. Just out of curiosity, since our kids and I were "supposedly" covered in the policy according to the Hartford, do you think they would've been willing to pay an injury claim reported by my Wife on behalf of our kids or I? I’m sure that would’ve looked pretty suspicious and most certainly would’ve been “denied”.
At any rate, on box (9) of their Workers Compensation Payroll report form which was later used in their audit asks if we use Non-Employee Labor and if yes, to please list the names of those whom you DO NOT have certificates of workers compensation coverage. This is very confusing as a small business owner who truthfully answered this question as "yes" because our children and I are not considered "employees" as owners of the business. As a result of this fact, none of us had a certificate of workers comp coverage nor were we required to do so by law.
Further complicating matters, box (5) on their Workers Comp Payroll report states to complete for officers, members, partners and proprietors and requires a % of stock owned. There were only (2) spaces provided here and we didn't put too much thought into it because as the Hartford was aware, we are an LLC co. not a Corporation and as a result do not own stock. The form says is it requires a % of stock owned, so we listed my wife and I as each as having a 50/50% ownership instead of specifically itemizing a % of stock owned by each owner which included our kids and once again there was no stock in existence to list. We tried repeatedly to explain this during the audit resolution process and to anyone who would listen but it didn't matter to anyone at the Hartford.
Additionally, box #7 states to list the total gross payroll for all employee(s) for the audit period shown above: (including officers, members, partners, proprietors, and all commissions, draws and bonuses). This was also very confusing due to the fact that box (5) of their form asks for a list of Officers, Members, Partners and Proprietors and then states (Do not list in Box 6). Box 6 states to list all employees and payroll information but then states “do not include in Box (5)”.
Box (7) states to provide the total gross payroll for all employees for the audit period shown above (referencing box 6) (including officers, members, partners, proprietors, and all commissions, draws and bonuses). We listed $XXX as “employee wages” in box (7) however this amount did not include wages for officers, members, partners, proprietors, commissions draws or bonuses as box (5) said not to re-list the names in box (6) and therefore did not filter down to box (7). Our confusion on box (6) is evidenced by the two names scratched out on the form that we’ve previously submitted above the name “XXXXX”. Again this was very confusing and misleading as those of us with “ownership interest” in the LLC were not on “payroll” nor technically considered as “employees” nor were there any gross wages paid. Any amounts paid for these individuals with ownership interest were paid on a “draw / commission” basis, so those amounts were not listed in box 7.
We realize in hindsight that box (6) should've included the names of the owners and amounts paid for each, which we also tried repeatedly to correct during the audit review process but again our explanation was not listened to and we were denied.
I strongly recommend to anyone considering this company or its services to think again. I don’t make it habit of writing lengthy reviews, especially negative ones but people deserve to know how this company treated us in this case. They give you forms to fill out that are impossible to fill out correctly and then they play “Gotcha” after the fact and rip you off. When you buy car insurance if you change something in your policy it goes into effect immediately and is reflected in your next upcoming bill. This is not the case with Worker’s compensation insurance. You give them an estimate of your payroll and be very very careful how you answer their questions or they can turn your answers back on you and make up that you owe ridiculous amounts of money after the fact.
Advertisementstates that 9 out of 10 people save money on auto insuance. Tey then quote 400% of my present G**** insurance.
Simply CHEATS !!!