Correspondence contained herein is considered a
reasonable copy of the original. During formatting some content may have
been electronically altered. In some cases names have been masked or
modified to assist in connecting or protecting those involved. In several instances the disclaimer at the bottom of emails shared thru the underwriter's messaging system were removed in web formatting. It will likely be found that the use of disclaimers in their email footers is an attempt to conceal material data, and to use this as a tactic to intimidate victims. (Thus another pattern of fraud emerges.)
[mailto:The Desk of Ted Whidden]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 4:31 PM
Cc: Rori Strickland
@aequicap.com; Florida Department of Financial
Services; Michael Lee
; Insurance Commissioner
Subject: Re: ACF1001306
To this point, 5-6 weeks after our loss we have not been
contacted by a reputable agent or claims person from your organization. You
will recall from my last conversation with you that you stated that, you were
the adjuster and you could do whatever you wanted in regards to the claim.
Unfortunately, on that September day you opted for calling a lawyer and lieing
to the lawyer's paralegal in order to tempt them in to talking to you against
BOTH your orders by me for you to leave them alone, and their orders by me to
remain out of the file.
Ms. Pusey your move that day in September (17th?) to
call the attorney's paralegal was a very bold maneuver. When you stated that
you had spoken to my brother Ken you over-stepped your authority and brought
your integrity more in to question. For the benefit of those in copy no one
from Aequicap has ever spoken to my brother Ken.
Imagine the paralegal's horror when she heard the
deceitful adjuster claiming to have spoken to someone that it was not remotely
possible that she could have spoken to. Imagine if you will if my brother had
been a deaf-mute, or comatose or in a vegetative state as a result of the
accident or some aspect of the accident. Ms. Pusey's lie to circumvent the
privacy, common decency and respect of a potential claimant is
ruthless...........Recall to this point no "claim" for personal injury was being
made. An attorney had made an attempt to contact the adjuster regarding
personal injury representation in error and had been called down on this
matter. Ms. Pusey had sent a demand letter days before. What was so urgent
that she HAD to speak to someone right then? What gave her the authority to go
against the victim/claimant's wishes and contact the attorney? What gave her
the excuse, reason, or authority to lie to the paralegal stating she had spoken
to someone she had not? This is a rather blatant ethics violation to a person
of the court. No matter what Pusey claims. No matter what she says, if she
said she had talked to me, then she should have never made the call, and if she
said she spoke to my brother whom she had never talked to she was being
dishonest. This is bad faith and more. There is a practice within the Aequicap
handling that was spotted immediately. They were warned about this deceptive
practice, but they continued.
To this point the devious counterpart of Ms. Pusey is
Strickland advised me over the phone in the first few
days of the notice that she was not going to send anyone to look at the Porsche
carried as a towed vehicle behind my vehicle. She advised within the same
conversation she had, had not, would, and would not assign an adjuster to look
at the Porsche. She lied in so many ways in one phone call, and lied in every
phone call with her, that I made a call to her supervisor Ms. Pusey that someone
else be placed on the file.
That is when Pusey decided to make the mis-guided phone
Both are obviously devious people. Meanwhile, now that
Strickland who is has established a pattern of dishonesty sees in writing that
it is openly admitted that no one from Aequicap spoke to my brother, she is
likely to use that as an excuse for not looking at the Porsche. It is a nice
play by a devious person, MEANWHILE their late attempts to look at the vehicle
have now taken a week extra for them to look at the vehicle at CO-Parts in
Jacksonville. What one will find is the vehicle sat for one month in an
independent storage lot awaiting the appointment of adjusters/investigators.
Since the adjusters were not appointed for over one month, there was delay.
Since my brother has YET to speak to them they have now demonstrated they could
have indeed looked at the vehicle at any point in time. Permission was granted
and it was fully accessible all along. It is a tangled web of deception these
adjusters weave. Clearly the delay to look at the Porsche is a maneuver planned
. Imagine if you will that the vehicle underwriter tried to
subrogate against Aequicap. They could have claimed they never looked at the
car!! An attempt to save some expense and side-step liability at the same
time. Now, Aequicap should be made to not only explain why they did not look at
the Porsche, but why they finally did at such late juncture (after the state
inquiry was initiated), and what their plan to resolve the damage is. To this
point, they still have an obvious liability and responsibility to the owner of
To this point it has taken 5-6 weeks for independent
adjusters to be assigned to look at vehicles from a routine traffic accident.
The cost to myself and my brother has been enormous because these are primary
vehicles that have been stalled in the process due to the deceptive and delayed
tactics by the adjusters.
Only now, approximately 6 weeks after the wreck are we
allowed to move our vehicles. Meanwhile, the details of the wreck and their
investigation confirms that we were rear-ended by their assured's 18 wheeler at
high rate of speed on a clear, open stretch of road at or around midnight with
our tail-lights illuminated. The 18 wheeler was charged with careless driving
and the charges in a court of law can spiral from there extending to the
insurance company and handlers from there. The deviant adjusters have tried to
avoid coverage issues for the trucking company without real reason, and have
tried to avoid liability without success. It seems there is no one willing to
accept the position of liability or responsibility. If it is deemed they or
their client are responsible/liable in this situation, then they have made a
number of missteps.
Since it appears the adjusters and investigators have
looked at all the vehicles involved would someone advise who is responsible for
our losses? We need to move forward with our situation and need to do something
with the vehicles. There are towing costs, storage costs and losses mounting.
It is my understanding that the state
insurance/financial division is looking in to this case and discovering the
files. Please make sure that this request for release/disposition is included
in their file.
It would be appreciated if a reputable adjuster/claims
handler would contact me via email to advise what kind of offer of settlement
you would like to make for our personal property. I would hope the personal
property discussions move better than they have to this point. We must keep them
in writing as one can imagine so the file is fully discoverable.
The state investigators will likely want to "discover"
the voice files of Mr. David Brill because they have been discussed in previous
e-mails and helps outline the insurance/adjuster outlook on this file.