www.FraudDocumentation.com  

 

Home

RICO Act Violation

Civil Filings

Buy the Book, Fraud: The Unforgivable Crime

Personnel

Correspondence

CPCU/SCLA/DBPR

Law

Charges/Issues 

www.TheBrainCan.com

Contact Us

===

www.tedwhidden.com

Facebook

 

'Ted' Theodore Lewis Whidden

Create Your Badge

 
     Exposing Fraud and Deception to protect the public good.

    www.frauddocumentation.com     www.frauddemonstration.com    www.frauddevelopment.com  

Contact us by e-mail for more details on this particular project.

E-Mail fraud@phdservice.com

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.)

 


 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: www.tedwhidden.com>

<The Desk of Ted Whidden>
Date: Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Good Faith Violation and Abuses by a Florida Adjuster/Underwriter group
To: InsuranceCommissioner@floir.com
Cc: , www.tedwhidden.com>

<The Desk of Ted Whidden>


Commissioner Kevin McCarty,

Recently I was involved in a vehicle accident wherein an 18 wheeler
(tractor truck rig) rear-ended the vehicle I was driving.  This
occurred on an open, straight road, or a clear night at midnight.  My
vehicle was totaled as was a towed vehicle and trailer.  My passenger
(my brother) and I have some rather serious concusion issues and other
needs.

The truck driver reported an invalid policy/number to the FHP at the
site.  It appears the truck was potentially covered under another
policy, but manifest evidence or assurance has not been offered.  If
the trucker does not have coverage can't a seizure of assets begin?

The claim is being handled by two adjusters at Aequicap in Fort
Lauderdale.  Both adjusters/handlers (Pusey and Strickland) have demonstrated deception, lies, and devious tactics in
their handling of the case.  I will outline a few of the instances on
how they have handled BOTH sides of the claim inaccurately and
unlawfully.

The underwriter/claims handler (Aequicap) has denied coverage to the
trucking company due to late reporting.  The wreck occurred at
midnight on a Saturday night.  Sometime around about Tuesday it

appears the dispatcher at Oliva Delivery Service/Olive Trucking
reported or admitted to having an incident to the Aequicap.  As you
and I know late reporting as an excuse for rejecting a claim is only
warranted if the late reporting precludes the ability of the
underwriter to defend the claim.  The vehicles were towed from the
site and still on location when the assured (Oliva

Delivery) reported
the claim.  Aequicap's ability to handle the claim, and the legal
recourses of the underwriter was not harmed in any way.  Aequicap's
denial is an example of Bad Faith abuses by an
adjuster/handler/underwriter to their assured.

During the first week after the incident I reported the incident to
Aequicap (Tuesday, 1110 am the week of the incident).  Aequicap took
the information.  By the end of the week both of the deviant adjusters
(Pusey and Strickland working behalf Aequicap) denied coverage
verbally.  They both advised that there was a coverage/policy dispute
regarding notification of re-insurance of newly added vehicles to the
policy and/or late notification by the assured (Oliva Trucking/Oliva

Delivery/Oliva Cigar Company).  Frankly, it is not too much of my
concern about the incompetence in their insurance placement issues.  I
am the offended third party victim.  The ill dealings on the part of
the offending party and their agents is not so much my concern.
Meanwhile, I advised Aequicap deviants that if they cannot
accept/confirm coverage to a third party after an event then it is
effectively a denial of coverage opening litigation options to the
offended party.  They do not seem to understand their role, that of
their clients, or their obligation to serve and defend.

By the end of the first week after the accident my brother and I
sought legal counsel/advice on the coverage issue.  Since no one was
coming forward to inspect/adjust the subject vehicles, and no one was
responding properly to our enquiries.  The legal counsel we received
was accurate and timely, however we chose not to fully engage the
attorney at the time.  We could see that the underwriter was dealing
improperly and unlawfully abusing their client (Oliva Delivery/Trucking) so we preferred to "stand-down" awaiting confirmation of coverage.  The attorney we spoke with became a little over-zealous and fired a letter prematurely to Aequicap.  The Aequicap personal injury adjuster (Pusey) responded immediately with a fax advising the effective policy (certified copy) would be sent to the attorney.  To my understanding the certified copy has not arrived. Meanwhile on the same day that Pusey was communicating to the attorney, the other deviant adjuster (Strickland) was advising me
there was no coverage/policy.  This discrepancy in their
perspective/opinion is an absolute demonstration of the type and style
of "Good faith/Bad Faith" they deal to others.  This is a lie.  One or
the other had to be lieing.  Correct?  Meanwhile, Strickland

was to respond and advise when the policy/coverage on our physical damage was resolved.  We awaited 2 weeks for either the confirmation of coverage from Strickland, or the arrival of the policy promised by Pusey.
Neither one arrived..................Since their denial of coverage to
the assured is/was for frivolous reasons, and their misdirection to us
(the third party) was in such conflict one can easily see a pattern of
bad faith/devious handling.

Following the two week wait for some form of advice so that we could
get our vehicles repaired/replaced, I contacted the adjuster Pusey

.
Pusey seems to be the more civil level headed of the deviants so I
chose to speak to her.  I advised that her counterpart Strickland

lacked integrity and had lied to me on every occasion I had spoken
with her.  I advised that I would like to speak to Strickland's
manager or someone of more integrity.  Pusey pretended to leave a
message for the manager, but instead sent an e-mail to the adjuster
Rori that I wanted to speak to her about something..........THEN
I asked Ms. Pusey why she was communicating with the attorney.  I
asked why the policy had not arrived, and why coverage had not been
resolved and advised to us three weeks after the accident.  Ms. Pusey

advised that she had received a letter from a third party (and
attorney) who advised he was representing us.  I advised Pusey

that he was not representing us, and that she was to have nothing further to
do with him.  I advised that she was to stand down and await written
advice from me for further action.  As soon as we got off the phone
Ms. Pusey called the attorney who I had just advised not to contact,
and she said she had spoken to my brother (Third Party Private) and was
following up on some file issues.  Ms. Pusey lied.  She has NEVER
spoken to my brother.  She used my brother as a shady tactic to try to
get around my request, AND she did it immediately after the request.
This is another Good Faith violation................Meanwhile, the
adjuster Pusey/Strickland

were still in denial of coverage to their assured.  If they are serious about their stand in denial then she had no right or reason to chase claim detail, and we were not pursuing anything in this regard.  The adjusters devious tactics on all fronts leave them conflicted with their own actions.  Why unlawfully pursue details of a case within which you are not liable or involved?  These are very bad people, and they are bad to all they connect with.

When the adjuster Pusey called the attorney (Coy Browning) office, the
office gave them no information (as they had been instructed to stand
down by me) and then immediately called me.  I called Ms. Pusey

to see why she had violated a direction I had given her, and asked why she
had done it immediately after being advised.  She advised that she
could do whatever she wanted to do and speak to whoever she wanted.
She was advised again to stand down, and to leave the attorney out of
it.  She was advised that she had no legal contract or relationship
with the attorney as soon as I advised her that she didn't in the
earlier phone call, and the only relationship/responsibility she had
was to me as the offended victim/third party of a loss.  She finally
admitted that day (Friday) she was not going to contact the attorney
again.  She was advised to await a letter from me which would instruct
her further.  The letter (see attached) was signed and sent by me and
my brother the following Monday.  Again, Pusey was operating in Bad
Faith by calling the attorney against my expressed wishes, and since
she did it immediately after being advised she had no intention of
awaiting the letter or honoring my request.

Maybe it should be noted at this point that we have not been advised
who is financially responsible, so we have not presented our loss in
any form.  All these tactics are before our loss is even discussed.  I
can understand the third party's desire to capture the amount/quantum
of loss and the time frame of payment, but to this point no one has
asked us for anything in that regard.  They are using thug tactics to
try to create their own information.  The letter attached outlines
that whatever their policy is the limits will likely be reached with
overages being the responsibility of the assured.  Further they are
advised to advise their Errors and Omissions underwriters regarding
the additional case concerning their misdeeds.

On the Monday when the attached letter was sent the deviant adjuster Strickland called me 1420 hours Miami time advising she had
received and "email" from Ms. Pusey advising that I wanted to speak
with her.  Note: Strickland did not contact me with policy/coverage
advice, or with advice on the intended disposition of my personal
vehcile/losses/damage.  Strickland's own admission was she was calling
because Pusey said I had requested it.  This is/was quite obviously a
lie by Pusey to Strickland or a lie by Strickland herself.  Either is
possible, because their conduct reveals both are not the types of
people to deal well with the truth.  In my opinion after a "bad faith"
or integrity is advised to an insurance handler and a request is made
to speak to someone of a different level of integrity after an obvious
set of deceptions (see above) then the request should be granted.
This means they either advised the manager who did nothing, or did not
advise the manager.  At any rate these hooligan tactics by the
adjusters are likely supervised or condoned by their supervisor.  All
should be brought in to question.

Moving forward I would anticipate these people to make irregular
contacts/decisions this week while the letter attached travels to them
by snail mail.  I further anticipate multiple acts of bad
faith/deception and potentially the "f" word by these adjusters.
There are actions and inactions in play that will bring to light their
behavior.

Please advise what course of action I have that I can take against
these deviants?  Please advise what action you and your office intend
to take against these deviants?  Since they are behaving in bad faith
against both the assured (Olive Transport Group/Oliva Delivery
Service/OlivaTrucking/etc) and since they are behaving in bad faith
(continued and repeated as a way of doing business), then how are we
to resolve our claims issues?  Since there is no longer any common
ground on which we can work to resolve our claim our losses and issues
are escalating rapidly.  Whereas the initial aspects of this was just
a "fender bender" and we wanted to move some cash by settling our
physical damage claim, the personal injury is spiralling out of
control.  (Details of the loss is that we were rear-ended by an 18
wheeler traveling at excessive speed).  We are happy to be alive, but
our lives are altered.

I am not sure if they are taking advantage of the trucking company
because of their ethnicity and lack of knowledge, or intending to take
advantage of us as an innocent victim, but it appears their type and
style of business handling can be mapped and predicted to err to the
devious side.  Please advise what we can do, and advise how we can
have someone look in to the dealings of Ms. Pusey, Ms. Strickland and
their managers and the Aequicap insurance operations they conduct.

As you will see, CastlePoint Underwriters may become involved at some
point, but to this point we have had no contact to/with them.  It
appears that thru some of the conversations they have failed to get
proper re-insurance for the named truck/assured, and may be working to
side-step a problem/fault of their own making.  For this reason their
E&O may be equally involved.

Sir, I really do not see how the state of Florida can allow such
people to operate in the public as licensed adjusters.  In an effort
to rid Florida citizens and visitors of this deviant behavior I would
like to initiate whatever procedure necessary to have them loss their
professional adjuster licenses in this and other states.  Can your
office guide or assist in that effort?  I know it is in the
Commission's best interest to rid the insurance world of these types,
so anticipate some assistance in that regard from your office.

Please advise by return e-mail as soon as possible.  We really want to
get together with some legitimate entities for an expeditious handling
of our simple losses.

Sincerely,

www.tedwhidden.com>


 

 

Supreme Court ruled unanimously written by Judge William Rehnquist concerning Hustler Magazine v Jerry Falwell

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty and thus a good unto itself but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."

Supreme Court Judge Scalia wrote concerning Pope v Illinois

"Just as there is no use arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about it."

Copyright May 2011, All rights reserved by Ted Whidden

www.frauddocumentation.com     www.frauddemonstration.com    www.frauddevelopment.com