was a loyal client of Jay's office for years and trusted their judgment and professionalism. Unfortunately, that trust was misplaced.
A change to my policy made by Jay's office was submitted, indicating that I was married when I was not. At no point was I contacted beforehand to discuss this decision or its implications. The consequences were significant and extremely costly.
What troubled me most was the lack of accountability afterward. I never received a call from Jay to discuss what happened, acknowledge the issue, or apologize. My final interactions with the office were dismissive and unprofessional.
Mistakes happen. Accountability matters. Based on my experience, I cannot recommend this office.
Update 6/18/26
As far as "the information given when the policy change was requested".. I never requested to have my marital status changed. My partner moved in and I took over payment of her vehicle insurance. That was when someone, unilaterally, made the decision to change my status to married. There was never a conversation. Furthermore, your comment insinuates that I said otherwise and am not telling the truth. To be clear, I am no longer your client, you are welcome to use that clause to hide behind, which is the exact reason I left. Accountability seems to have been lost in your business plan.
One more fact I would like to mention, if I did in-fact, give you information that would have supported a change in my status, why didn't it come up when you were under oath? That seems like the appropriate time to share such prudent documentation??? When the judge asked you, your response was nothing remotely close to what you said in your response to my review. Maybe it would help to read what the judges response was? Just help jog the old memory ....
" The Court heard directly from the State Farm agent in Durango to the extent and saw documentation to the extent that State Farm, when Mr. Glover asked to combine their policies -- or to combine Ms. Banks'
automobile with his coverage, that one of the few choices available to them was married, although there was a single box blank that could have been checked. There is no evidence before this Court that Mr. Glover indicated, when attempting to combine policies, that the parties were, in fact, married and that it should be a married policy; rather, it appears to be something that was done at State Farm and in
their office.
Well, it's unfortunate to see the continued lack of ownership and that the response given was deemed appropriate. read more
