Not resolved
1.0
Details
Reliability
Value for money
Website
0 comments

In one fell swoop the lack of credibility of the registrants of structuredsettlement.us(dot)com and stateandlocalgov.net has been exposed. I've seen Pissed Consumer reviews for both companies and looked at them and I was just disgusted with the lack of professionalism on offer at Structuredsettlement.us.com which is exclusively endorsed by stateandlocalgov.net.

I'm wondering if they are one and the same. It doesn't take much to research and print accurate facts if you are trying to be an authority on structured settlements. Examples of lazy incompetence on offer 1. In defining Liberty Life, says it was founded in 1980.

Uses Liberty Mutual logo, probably without authorization. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, the structured settlement annuity issuer that is a subsidiary of Liberty Mutual was actually founded in 1964. Its parent, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, whose logo was used was founded in 1912. Maybe they were confused with Liberty Life, which was taken over and renamed by Athene in 2012..

But that Liberty Life was founded in 1905. 2. In defining Prudential they say it was founded in 1984 and use the logo of Prudential plc, a British company that I found has nothing to do with structured settlements in the US and was actually founded in 1848. The unrelated US company, that used to have the slogan " Get a Piece of the Rock" is called The Prudential Insurance Company of America.

That was founded in 1868 in Newark, NJ. Stateandlocalgov.net is highly suspect for endorsing and even suggesting that structuredsettlement.us.com can provide legal advice. ":For any legal questions concerning lawsuit or structured settlements please visit S t r u c t u r e d s e t t l e m e n t . u s .

c o m and tell them we sent you. If they were really lawyers then it is unlikely that misinformation would be allowed to be published.

There are plenty of sources of useful accurate information on structured settlements on the Internet. These two sites are not among them.

Reason of review: Bad quality.

Monetary Loss: $200.

Preferred solution: Perhaps these toucans can post correct information.

I didn't like: Lotsa inaccuracies, Held out as providing legal advice by suspect 3rd party, Typical dime a dozen low quality website in this space.

Do You Have Something To Say ?

Write a review

Comments

Terms of Service
Post Comment
Cancel

You May Also Like