One of the benefits of using a Chase card is that they offer price protection, we’ve detailed this benefit in some detail here. They will now do the following:
- Send out a snail mail attestation form
- This must be reviewed by you and then signed with a wet signature (signed with an ink pen)
Chase claims that this has been added to reduce potential fraud associated with this benefit. I think the real reason they are adding this requirement is that a number of websites are now offering automated price protection for credit cards, this has likely seen the number of claims rise dramatically. I wouldn’t be surprised to see other card issuers making changes to their price protection policies as well. As reader Mystral rightly points out if you are unhappy with this change you should voice your unhappiness with Chase.
Hat tip to reader Max K
I received $500 PP check from Chase for buying my new OLED TV… like everyone else I received that annoying email but I never received the form in the mail and never signed it… I guess they just processed it without?
In any case, not complaining. Maybe I got lucky.
Finally received the attestation form today, and it’s basically what I expected. Mostly the same terms as are on the Allianz website, but with a whole page of Chubb legalese.
https://imgur.com/sHcGuDm
My favorite is that “claimant confirms that he/she is an eligible HUMAN insured cardholder or a HUMAN representative with the explicit consent of the accountholder to submit this claim.”
The funny thing about this is that it basically lists out for customers every problem Chubb has with its business. Rather than actually find creative ways to address these issues, they are essentially brute-forcing it by just making a long list of “don’t do these” for us to sign, as though it’s going to have any impact whatsoever.
If someone is intentionally committing fraud, or using automation to max out their price protection, this is just going to slow them down and be an annoyance. It would take about 10 seconds to Microsoft Paint this paper, slap a new claim number in the top-right corner, and send it back without having to wait for it in the mail.
As others have said, it serves no purpose but to diminish utility of the benefit. Chase needs to find a new partner to underwrite this program, or at the very least send out a decent piece of customer communication about them. Penalizing us all because of what a few people are doing does not seem like the right way to approach this, especially for people paying for a premium product.
From attestation form:
“Claimant understands that multiple claims may not be submitted for the same product that exceeds the total price difference and/or the applicable benefit amount.”
What does that even mean?
Are others having as much trouble with the 2-factor authentication as I am? I find myself having to authenticate several times per session, and sometimes just get locked out of the system all together. Has been very frustrating!
I haven’t had that problem—-yet. But it sounds like one of AGA’s/Chubb’s tactics to frustrate claims.
Expect to wait a LONG time for attestation forms. I’m still without them for claims filed more than ten business days ago. Did USPS suddenly go on strike? (This doesn’t have anything to do with the holidays. I’ve gotten plenty of other mail within four days — from companies 2k+ miles away.
These forms could be a pseudo waiting period for them to approve/decline claim as another poster above was wrongly accused of returning an item under claim. If you were going to “work” they system, why not wait until you got the claim, or get a gift receipt and return it that way so there is no credit to you cc. IMO, they should have these forms downloadable and the claimant just writes down the claim number and signs, seems to be more intent if handwritten and signed if you intend to file a false claim?
AGA doesn’t have access to CC accounts. That’s why a CC statement is requested when filing a claim.
For a while, AGA stopped that requirement. But then it came back. I guess we know how that worked out, right? lol
I remember before if the original receipt had the last 4 of the cc then the cc statement was not needed. I usually just printed the actual transaction and not the statement.
I have the same problem. I have over 30 text messages from Chase with the verification code to login to the system. Half the time it doesn’t work at all and I get locked out for a few hours. The other half it works but I still have to do it again when submitting a new claim or if I wait too long in navigating between pages. It’s like they didn’t realize there are dozens of good verification systems available, so they had someone build one in-house instead.
Actually the more I think about it, the more I realize this must be intentional. If they are trying to combat automated programs filing claims, making the process onerously difficult by incorporating as many different forms of authentication as possible – frequent text message verification, hand-written forms, pulling your monthly statement – is how they would do it. So I guess this is just part of their solution.
I spoke with a senior member of management at AGA this morning who had some helpful info to share.
This was instituted in the first place because they were seeing a high degree of fraud, and also a high degree of automated activity (i.e. bots monitoring price changes and then automatically submitting price protection claims). Chubb are the ones who put this policy in place; AGA’s role is simply to enforce their policies through the technology they employ.
The inner PR professional in me is paraphrasing slightly, but his general message was that this process is still being worked through and that we can expect more tweaks as they work to achieve the optimal balance between fraud prevention and customer experience. He did not go into more detail, but my assumption is that this might include the requirement threshold, delivery method for the attestation form, things like that. (There really aren’t too many levers to pull here.)
Speaking of changes, he also suggested I revisit my tests of the $5 threshold. When I did, it appears now that it has been increased to allow claims without attestation on claims up to $15. I tested this on my CSR as well as CF and saw it to be consistent. That said, he implied that there are various factors, so it’s possible that some accounts will see different limits based on their past activity.
Still suggest contacting Chase to voice displeasure about this; this is now a pattern for Chubb and something it seems they will only continue to do as they work to decrease their claims-related liabilities.
If that weren’t bad enough, Chubb/AGA have been sending out letters, accusing claimants of fraud for “returning items” that were NOT actually returned.
I got one for an item sitting sitting a few feet from me. When I complained to AGA, it said that, during a phone call, my merchant claimed that my item had been returned. Of course, AGA declined to let me hear a recording of “the call.” Instead, I was directed to appeal the decision. After submitting several documents, I got my claim paid.
Curiously, my merchant claimed that it had no record of any phone call from AGA about my order.
It would be interesting to know how this process works. From the time you initiate a claim, Chubb, must have some access to your cc transactions to verify original purchase date, price, etc. There seems to be a window in which this AL(attestation letter) is physically mailed out etc for chubb to monitor credits to the account to see if item returned. But I can’t see a huge company like amazon or walmart taking time to physically call chubb and inform them of a return, unless chubb flags the transaction and if a return comes in they are electronically notified. But if you do multiple items on a transaction and return the item in question and another, the amounts won’t match up? I had somewhat of a similar potentially confusing situation. I bought a watch at amazon and when I received it the hands did not line up with the hash marks (Citizen Ecozilla) I returned and reordered again, see the potential confusion? There was a credit for the initial purchase, but another purchase, same amount same vendor, but the dates of order and credit posting to account could cause eyes to wonder. Fortunately, my claim at Discover was approved.
Wow, this is a TERRIBLE experience to subject customers to. I cannot fathom that Chase is okay with a vendor sending that sort of communication out to its cardholders, especially when done under false pretenses.
Did you contact Chase about this? I would strongly suggest doing so and asking to escalate to the executive offices.
I had a similar letter that I received just recently. It stated that I misrepresented my claim when I presented it because the item was returned to merchant. Their accusation was not true however regarding that the claim was misrepresented when it was submitted. Since their claims process is lacking in communication about when the claim is approved, and the fact that the adjusters attempt to find every method to not pay the claim, I did return my item assuming they weren’t going to approve my claim after they first denied it. They sited that the stote I purchased from would pricematch, but the rep at the store was uneducated on the matter and gave incorrect info. I sent them the pricematch policy from the merchant showing the associate was wrond and they still wanted to deny the claim becayse of what the associate stated to the adjuster. They messed around with paying the claim and I was’t going to get stuck with full price merchandise. As far as I’m aware, I did not commit any fraud as it is defined by law. I will be contacting them to sort this out so as to not have any potential issues.
This brings me to another point, where in any of the terms and conditions for Chase, or the new attestations does it state that you can’t return an item AFTER a claim is paid? Their language about items returned is ambiguous and since the terms and conditions are contracts of adhesion, ambiguous language will be found the be in our favor because we can’t modify before acceptance.
What happens if you file a return protection claim after you file a price protection claim? As far as I’m aware the Common Law Doctrine of Collateral Source rule would potentially diminish any issue.
I hope to get clarification with Chase as the last thing I want is to have happen is to have an issue because a gift I buy for someone (It is the Holidays) gets returned after a price protection claim is filed and paid.
I am not condoning any sort of benefit abuse here, but the reality is we all may have different legitimate reasons for returning an item after a claim is paid and we shouldn’t have to worry about this when they don’t properly disclose what your limitations are after a claim is paid.
Got clarification on this today. They do not track after claim is closed out according to the adjuster, so a return after the fact will not be an issue. I also gave my response to be noted in the file and they added it and were pleasant.
Update: Filed 2 small claims for $2.09 each and status is paid as of today, but haven’t check in a few days so it could of been changed earlier. It was a test price protection and surprised they paid it. The items purchased were Sabre pepper spray sold on Amazon.com. So a couple notes, I never received the attestation forms even though rep said she sent them out. I guess the $5.01 threshold overrode that requirement. Secondly, the pepper spray has an expiration date on the canister. I inquired with Discover regarding price matching contact lens and they told me it is not allowed since it is considered a consumable, or something with an expiration date. So, by default, being able to create claim online and not having to explain the item to discover, so they can shoot it down before filing, is a plus.
@Gerry, the most obnoxious thing is the text verification every single time you want to access the claim. They are just adding hoop after hoop in an attempt to make you forget about ever filing another price protection claim again.
I just got off the phone with the claims department and the attestation form doesn’t have to be notarized. Once you sign it, they advised that you upload it the website. She also stated every single price protection claim will require this form. She probably does not have knowledge as to whether there is a $5 threshold or not. Also, they will not email it. It comes via snail mail only.
Needless to say, Chase’s Price Protection benefit is now a joke. Maybe if they get a lot of backlash about all these changes, perhaps they may revert back.
“Doesn’t have to be notarized”
YET…
To even check on status, you need to go through the text verification code.
I had two small price protection claims that I created and got some information. The rep asked how many forms to send out, I said 6 so I could have some for future claims. This will not work, since each form is linked to a claim number or or case number. They are not generic blank forms where you just add the claim number etc. They can see when an attempt to file a claim is initiated, I had not yet submitted the claim but they can see me uploading documents. I did not see the $5.01 threshold listed anywhere, or may have missed it. This is clearly an attempt to thwart price submissions, IMO. I asked if document needed to be notarized, which would have been too obvious in their intentions? I asked why not email document, etc and mentioned when I scan the document do you want to see the color ink, if not its black and white and could be electronic signature or stamp. Tons of hoops to play in their sandbox.
What did they say when you asked about color ink vs. black and white? It’s a valid point; hard for them to know exactly how the signature got there either way.
The $5.01 threshold is not listed anywhere. I did my own experimentation with various numbers on a bunch of dummy claims until I found the threshold at which I could cause the message to display or not display.
I don’t think she understood why I was asking and then got defensive, but its just a front line csr and did not expect a concise explanation.
When I think of it, my claims were for under $5.01, the only reason I called was to inquire about the attestation document, when I clicked submit, there was nothing additional that said I needed to send in. So I may be able to not send in document then.
Chubb is the underwriter for the Chase policies, and they are the ones who started requiring monthly statements for all claims back in June, and have added the 2-factor authentication and attestation form requirements as of November 22nd.
It looks like there is a $5.01 threshold before the attestation requirement kicks in. Claims of $5 and under do not receive that warning message. Note that the attestation form is submitted online, NOT mailed back. It seems that they are simply mailing them in the first place to validate the address.
Allianz Global Assistance (AGA) administers the Price Protection program for Chase in accordance with Chubb’s underwriting terms and is responsible for execution but not policy.
The best thing to do here is to reach out to Chase to voice your dissatisfaction with these changes. From my POV there are a couple big issues right now:
1) The attestation form doesn’t add much from a benefits standpoint since it’s just as binding as a digital signature. And the language implies that customers need this because we either are A) committing fraud, or B) probably unfamiliar with the program terms. In any case, it seems like an effort by the underwriter to reduce # of claims, and at best a shot in the dark at reducing whatever fraud they think exists. (Ask Chase to work with Chubb on a more customer-friendly way to achieve whatever their goals are here.)
2) The $5.01 threshold is absurdly low. If an attestation form will be required, it should be for larger claims, not a piddly $5.01. (Ask Chase to work with Chubb to increase the threshold to something more reasonable if this requirement is going to stick around,)
3) The 2-factor authentication does not do any IP address whitelist or cookies or anything, and with the navigation on those pages being a little shoddy sometimes, it’s easy to get forced into multiple 2FA cycles within the same session. (Ask Chase to suggest to AGA that they work on their 2FA implementation, or contact AGA directly with this feedback and ask to speak with a member of management.)
Highly encourage calling Chase or using the secure message center online to share feedback on any or all of the above.
Thanks for all the details, Stevens. Appreciate it.
Whew, so we’ve got to presumably pay for a stamp on each claim too? But presumably the service still pays to send the letter in the first place?
Ultimately these price protection policies aren’t feasible if they’re automatically claimed by a significant number of people. So you either see these roadblocks or no protection offered in the first place.
The typical proposition of these benefits and insurance services are to offer a lot of coverages that sound valuable but in reality occur very rarely, people rarely remember or bother to claim.