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  

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.)
 
 
 
From: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com> >
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: Tower/Castle Point: Immediate response requested
To: "Elliot Orol, SVP General Counsel Tower Group" <eorol@twrgrp.com> , "Joel Weiner, SVP Strategic Planning Tower Group" <jweiner@twrgrp.com> , "Austin Young, Director Tower Group" <ayoung@twrgrp.com> , "Christian Pechmann, SVP Marketing and Dist. Tower Group" <cpechmann@twrgrp.com> , "Jan Van Gorder, Director Tower Group" <jvangorder@twrgrp.com> , Rori Strickland <Rori_Strickland@aequicap.com> , Susan Eylward <seylward@twrgrp.com> , "Salvatore Abano, CIO Tower Group" <SAbano@twrgrp.com> , EPalmer@twrgrp.com , Michael Lee <info@twrgrp.com> , "Pusey, Keisha" <KPusey@twrgrp.com> , "Steven Schuster, Director Tower Group" <sschuster@twrgrp.com> , "Strickland, Rori" <RStrickland@twrgrp.com> , "Laurie Ranegar, SVP Operations" <lranegar@twrgrp.com> , "William Fox, Director Tower Group" <wfox@twrgrp.com> , John Pecoraro <John_Pecoraro@aequicap.com> , LAptman@twrgrp.com , "Pecoraro, John" <JPecoraro@twrgrp.com> , Adam Perri <aperri@twrgrp.com> , MSturm@twrgrp.com , Keisha Pusey <Keisha_Pusey@aequicap.com> , "William Hitselberger, CFO Tower Group" <whitselberger@twrgrp.com> , MGuiry@twrgrp.com , "Robert Smith, Director Tower Group" <rsmith@twrgrp.com> , "Gary Maier, SVP Chief Underwriting Officer Tower Group" <gmaier@twrgrp.com> , "Charles Bryan, Director Tower Group" <cbryan@twrgrp.com> , "Michael Lee, CEO Tower Group" <MLee@twrgrp.com>, Ruth Oren <ROren@twrgrp.com>  , "William Robbie, Director Tower Group" <wrobbie@twrgrp.com>


Elliot and all,

I am dropping a series of packages off for on carriage today
concerning this loss/incident. As I am in New York would you prefer
that I drop yours by in person, or by courier, or by mail? How would
you prefer?

Should you want to have the meeting that should have been conducted
weeks if not months ago, feel free to contact me via email.

Sincerely,

Ted Whidden

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com> > wrote:
> Elliot,
>
> As you know (as well as your Board of Directors and office) I have
> been standing by in New York for approximately two (2) weeks awaiting
> an opportunity to meet with you to discuss a legal issue that is
> growing totally out of control. The legal issue has been orchestrated
> by your office, using a variety of unlawful abuses to bring us to a
> point where we now find ourselves..............The loss/event that
> brought about our meeting was ten (10) months ago (August 29, 2010),
> and since then I have gone through all the proper protocol to reveal
> the frauds sustained to me as a victim in the loss and victim of the
> fraud. Your entire Board of Directors was advised yet again on March
> 23, 2011, nearly 8 months after the event, and it is now ten months
> and abuses continue. Is this how you run your business?
>
> You were advised in March 2011 that this could be handled privately or
> publicly. We will be going a bit more public very soon. Be aware
> that everyone who knows about the crimes committed by your company
> have a responsibility. What is yours? What is theirs? The release
> which is now being made available outlines the ethics requirements for
> the people under your employ. Ethics codes were made available to
> your claims people within a very few days of the original
> wreck/incident because they did not demonstrate
> knowledge/understanding that they were held to a standard of ethics.
> These unethical people are under your direction. Evidence of bad
> faith and endorsement by your corporate office, by your handlers, and
> agents is abundant.
>
> Again, you and your board of directors were advised March 23,
> 2011,then two months later (May 24 &27, 2011) I made additional
> contacts with your office. Oddly, ignorring the contact doesn't
> absolve you or your group of the problem. As you can see the
> responsibility is escalating, and your integrity as well as your
> entire organization is coming in to question. Early action gives you
> a clear scapegoat (your claims manager), meanwhile delay involves more
> people. As this continues you and those around you appear to "buy in"
> to the claims manager's criminal behavior. A corporate culture of
> fraud is apparent. Noting that, several (all?) of your directors were
> notified as recent as March 23, 2011 concerning the corporate fraud
> seen as a pattern. Some of your other directors may wish to be
> present in our meeting, because your legal guidance to this point has
> likely brought them in a place of responsibility they may not have
> wanted. You are displaying the same incompetence of the claims
> manager. Your people are suppose to be professionals. Your people
> were advised on September 19th and October 1, 2010 that incompetence
> was not a defense. Ask Lowell Aptman and Michael Lee of your New York
> office. They should be familiar with this.
>
> For the benefit of those recently brought in to copy, the claims
> manager was invited to get involved because of the blatant bad faith
> and fraud by his subordinates (September 2010). The claims manager for
> the insurance operation committed several blatant and clear cut frauds
> in his introduction (and afterwards) to the victims in a loss. The
> initial introduction by management orchestrated a fraud which occurred
> around about October 8, 2010, correspondence has been posted to the
> web. Your claims manager/corporate rep discredited himself in his
> introduction, and has committed at least 5 frauds to the State
> Financial Office, and put his frauds in the mail making it federal
> fraud. Clearly he shored up the bad faith issues committed by your
> company and should have been immediately removed from the loss. Good
> faith and fraud was alerted to his superiors, who actually promoted
> him to higher levels of authority while he conducted this criminal
> behavior. This type and style of abuse has occurred at every
> encounter with your devious claims team. This was clearly advised to
> the Board of Directors, and the CEO has been held in copy on material
> documents for 9+ months, and was responded to by the New York office.
> The New York office and parent company is clearly
> involved.............For the benefit of those to be held in copy the
> correspondence and documents are all being made available at
> www.frauddocumentation.com . Nothing about this loss is complicated,
> but the devious handling is criminal, and all those with knowledge are
> required to make written reports to authorities.
>
> Since your office is headed and founded by lawyers, and your board
> appears to connect with several legal types, it is a bit difficult to
> trust "lawyers" in this. Surely those heading up a devious operation
> can see the terrible reflection this type and style of treatment
> brings on the legal community, insurance industry, and corporate
> America. What does a person have to do to find integrity and
> responsibility in law/insurance interests?
>
> To confirm, your corporate office is at 120 Broadway, 31st Floor, New
> York City. Please confirm/acknowledge.
>
> I would have preferred to have been invited to your office for a civil
> meeting. Since I was not invited, then I will have to consider
> stopping by this week if I have not heard from you before. I cannot
> standby forever. This is costly for all involved. Your offices in
> Miami and New York apparently intend to continue refusing meetings to
> discuss and resolve this since the incident occurred. Your failure to
> get involved actually involves your office since your "claims manager"
> has refused to deal with the situation, is considered a good faith
> risk, and has insisted on seeking "legal recourse". Since he stepped
> away from the claim, and left no option I have contacted his corporate
> legal counsel to see if you endorse the idiotic and criminal behavior
> of your claims manager. Do you?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ted Whidden
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Pecoraro, John <JPecoraro@twrgrp.com>
> Date: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:11 PM
> Subject: RE: FW: ACF1001306 Theodore & Kenneth Whidden v. Frank
> Delgado Yera & Oliva Delivery Service, Inc. d/l 08/29/10
> To: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com> >
> Cc: "Pusey, Keisha" <KPusey@twrgrp.com> , "Strickland, Rori"
> <RStrickland@twrgrp.com> , "dbrill@windstream.net"
> <dbrill@windstream.net>
>
>
> Mr. Whidden, given your response, it appears your option at this point
> is to seek redress through the court system.
>
>
>
>
>
> John R. Pecoraro, CPCU, SCLA
>
> AVP Claims
>
> Tower Group Companies
>
> Fort Lauderdale Office
>
> 954-598-6572
>
> jpecoraro@twrgrp.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ted Whidden [mailto:www.tedwhidden.com> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:10 AM
> To: Pecoraro, John
> Cc: Pusey, Keisha; Strickland, Rori; dbrill@windstream.net
> Subject: Re: FW: ACF1001306 Theodore & Kenneth Whidden v. Frank
> Delgado Yera & Oliva Delivery Service, Inc. d/l 08/29/10
>
>
>
> John Pecoraro,
>
> At this juncture one can see that your denial of liability is a pretty
> frivolous stance. For a number of reasons you will soon find that you
> are unable to substantiate your position, and with each passing day
> you will look more and more foolish.
>
> Please understand if you can/will that irrespective of your devious
> dealings or intentions, you still have a fiduciary obligation to your
> principles to mitigate their exposure. You have maximized your own
> exposure, and greatly increased the exposure to your company, BUT
> there are opportunities to still save them some money/embarrassment.
> It is your obligation no matter how vivid your imagination to settle
> our property losses. We were rear-ended by your misbehaving truck
> driver. This is clear. Liability is not questioned. It is merely a
> part of a game you are playing. Meanwhile, it has been made clear to
> you and your company… both the Blazer and the Porsche involved in the
> wreck were primary vehicles to the owners. No matter what you say or
> do, your company is liable for the costs to repair/replace the
> vehicles. Your continued delay and failure to assume a position of
> responsibility could be very costly for your company. Our costs and
> inconvenience continues more than 6 months after the wreck, and your
> handling is causing unimaginable mental anguish as we negotiate
> through this without being in the best possible financial position.
> There are business and family issues developing and lingering as a
> result of this protracted delay. You and your company are
> responsible.
>
> Your responsibility for replacing our primary vehicles is practically
> indisputable. Costs sustained to us as well as damages, interest, etc
> are due from your company. A reasonable person in your position would
> be required at this time to extend some form of gesture of good faith
> (and “Olive branch”) so to speak to get the easily quantifiable
> aspects behind us, making the victims “whole” in part where the
> vehicle losses have occurred.
>
> Sure, offering to make settlement is an admission of liability, but
> you are fully liable and you know it. If you do not by now, then you
> are a bigger idiot than I thought initially. The key at this point
> for you is to mitigate the damages you have caused. Settling the
> vehicle damages is a given. You just need to figure out how to
> resolve this after all the damage(s) you have caused. You would look
> much better in the eyes of the law and a jury if you owned up to your
> deception and made a gracious offer to settle our vehicle loss. Yes,
> you are in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position, but
> that is the nature of fraud. Meanwhile, your principle is on the hook
> for increased costs through your deception. Do you want to continue
> or increase their pain? You do hope that they help cover your legal
> expenses, don’t you? If you had a chance to extend an act of good
> faith and did not then what might they do to “help” you similarly? It
> is indeed a tangled web you have woven. Deception of this magnitude
> likely always brings about this kind of confusion. John you have put
> your client company in an unwinnable situation. You owe it to them to
> cut their losses. Please put together an offer to settle the two
> vehicular damages we have. These will be considered without
> prejudice to any other losses, damages, etc. Please include an
> element of interest on our losses for the time you have wasted in
> doing the proper thing.
>
> It is preferred that someone else handle this. I prefer to have
> nothing to do with you or anyone like you. That is indeed an option a
> person who is a victim of an insurance claim has in Florida. I
> exercise that right.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ted Whidden
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Pecoraro, John <JPecoraro@twrgrp.com>  wrote:
>
> Mr. Whidden, our position on this disputed claim has been stated in
> our responses to your numerous emails, Civil Remedy Notices and
> Department of Insurance complaint. At this point, it is abundantly
> clear we have opposing viewpoints. If you truly want to “move forward
> with your life” and want someone from Tower Insurance Group to contact
> you to attempt resolution of you and your brother’s claim, I am that
> person.
>
>
>
> However, the tone and substance of all communications throughout this
> resolution process must be civil and totally absent of all defamatory
> rhetoric. Otherwise, the process cannot continue.
>
>
>
> I await your response.
>
>
>
>
>
> John R. Pecoraro, CPCU, SCLA
>
> AVP Claims
>
> Tower Group Companies
>
> Fort Lauderdale Office
>
> 954-598-6572
>
> jpecoraro@twrgrp.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ted Whidden [mailto:www.tedwhidden.com> ]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:44 AM
> To: John Pecoraro
> Cc: Keisha Pusey; Rori Strickland; David Brill
>
> Subject: Re: ACF1001306 Theodore & Kenneth Whidden v. Frank Delgado
> Yera & Oliva Delivery Service, Inc. d/l 08/29/10
>
>
>
> John R Pecoraro,
>
>
>
> Please understand that fraud is a crime. You have committed fraud
> multiple times. Every one of your filings to the State Commissioner
> of Insurance includes fraud, elements of fraud, and attempted frauds.
> In my September 2010 letters/emails to you I advised that losses would
> exceed all policy limits, and that your company's mishandling issues
> early on stood to increase the value of the claim substantially. Now,
> you have committed multiple frauds in your attempt to use unlawful
> means to avoid liability (which is a fraud in itself). Understand
> fraud typically has no statute of limitations, no limit of liability,
> and has nothing to do with the claim/liability. This is a crime you
> committed that ADDS to your company's liabilities. You have done an
> extremely poor job of protecting your company/client's interests.
> Instead of limiting liability you have removed all limitations and
> opened up Pandora's box of options for us to pursue you and your
> company. Mr. Pecoraro, I advised you and your principles within 2-3
> weeks of the incident to stop the pattern of abuses noted at that
> time. Since then your parent company appears to have endorsed your
> illegal behavior making each of you personally, professionally, and
> corporately responsible. The somewhat humorous part is that you have
> committed your frauds TO THE STATE agency that investigates and
> enforces this type of behavior. If I wasn't writing a book about such
> stupid maneuvers and frauds by corporations I would have to start one
> now. I think you will make history if you keep going in the direction
> you are going.
>
>
>
> In case you are concerned (which would be a change) the doctors have
> indicated I have permanent concussion/brain damage, and will have to
> undergo therapy to help cope. Your frivolous pursuits have made this
> much more difficult than it needs to be. You need to stop your abuses
> and games. I fully expect your unlawful maneuvers to cost you and
> your company. You need to advise your superiors and E&O of your
> problems otherwise risk increasing the losses and exposure more.
>
>
>
> Your response to our correspondences leading to date demonstrate
> either severe incompetence on your part or extreme dishonesty. Please
> have the following read to you by someone who understands insurance,
> law, and the English language. Your continued failure in these areas
> is not a defense. The letters/endorsements behind your name would
> indicate to most people that you have knowledge in these areas. They
> demonstrate a level of knowledge and responsbility, therefore the only
> thing left to destroy is your integrity and character, which you seem
> to do a very good job of.
>
>
>
> Mr. Pecoraro, you and your company represent commercial carriers in
> over the road trucking. It seems more probable to those outside your
> organization that the vast majority of the losses/claims you are
> involved in regard a trucker hitting a citizen/consumer. I do not
> know that I have ever heard of a car hitting an 18 wheeler, so the
> majority of your "claims" you see would seem to be wherein your
> assured/client is fully at fault. Your hooligan tactics to offend the
> public make you an enemy to the consumer/citizen, and these are
> criminal acts you commit routinely as a matter of course in your daily
> business.
>
>
>
> The incident that brought rise to my and your encounter involved a
> rear-end collision by a trucker charged with reckless driving. He hit
> us from behind on a long, clear stretch of road and admitted at the
> scene to not having his eyes on the road leading to the accident.
>
>
>
> Your creative (dishonest and deceptive) response of October 8, 2010
> constitutes multiple counts of attempted fraud and fraud. I will
> outline a few of them, but they have become far more complicated for
> you than ever before. On several occasions (you refer to a "myriad of
> complaints") I have encouraged you to review your file giving you
> opportunity to amend your foolish stance. On five or more times now
> it seems you have insulted me, your industry and the Commissioner of
> Insurance by filing your frauds and attempts at fraud to them. You
> have complicated your frauds, attempts at fraud, and other charges by
> dropping the letters to the Commissioner in to the U.S. mail.
> Pecoraro! Understand you are guilty of Federal Mail Fraud!! Not only
> are you guilty of state, interstate, and federal frauds, but all those
> in your organization who participated in your correspondence and
> strategizing are party to the fraud.................You see
> incompetence and dishonesty seems to permiate virtually every
> correspondence I have received from your team. Much of this began
> when I questioned the ability and integrity of those under your
> management, then you ramped up the deceptions!! What a person is to
> do? Where does it end with you? I kept thinking sooner or later
> wisdom would prevail, but your deceptions continue.
>
>
>
> Oddly, no reasonable person can see how you can deny liability in a
> rear-end collision. No matter what your reasoning is, your stance is
> absurd. Your support for your stance constitutes attempts at fraud,
> to mislead and deceive to the ultimate end you desire which is denial
> of liability. Your denial is actual, and is a perfection of your own
> fraud attempt.
>
>
>
> At this juncture any change of your claims stance based on a letter
> insulting you would serve to demonstrate you are manuevering to "miss"
> the fraud, thus it would be an admission of guilt. You see the
> problem with fraud once committed is that you are incriminated any way
> you turn. You REALLY need to advise your Errors and Omissions
> coverage underwriters as I told you to do in my September/October 2010
> letters. You are now operating in violation, and very likely they can
> avoid covering your legal costs because of late notification........Of
> course, as you should know "late notification" is only a defense for
> underwriters if it can be demonstrated that the late notification
> prejudiced their defenses. You have indeed prejudiced their
> defenses........Further to this, you have incriminated your corporate
> parent (Tower Group and CastlePoint) because they have been held in
> copy throughout, and Tower Group's Lowell Aptman endorsed your
> criminal behavior in his September 2010 letter..............Pecoraro,
> your frauds remove statutes of limitations and limits of liability and
> the frauds should concern YOU and your principle. They were not
> committed by your assured, they are fully yours financially, legally,
> etc. This "loss" is not something you can pass on to your assured's
> loss record, and it may not be something you can pass on to the
> reinsurance market, PLUS your E&O may be off the hook as well. You
> and your people need to get concerned.
>
>
>
> Please allow me to outline some of your frauds herein using only the
> response below (and those documents which attach).
>
>
>
> Fraud One: Frank R. Delgado (Yera) and/or his company appear to have
> committed fraud at the scene of the accident by providing false
> insurance verifications. Meanwhile, Delgado (has been party to or has
> perpetrated a fraud) is your only witness in the accident. His
> credibility and that of his company are already in question. Their
> testimony is considered tainted or questionable at any rate.
>
>
>
> Fraud Two: The insurance verification given by Delgado at the
> accident indicated the truck/driver was covered by a specific Aequicap
> Property and Casualty policy, making Aequicap and their personnel
> potentially party to Delgado's/Oliva Delivery Services fraud.
>
>
>
> Attempted fraud: Your handling of claim/case under "reservation of
> rights" is likely an unlawful (but common?) maneuver. Do you
> understand the ramifications of this deception?
>
>
>
> Improper Notification: In a panic to avoid good faith charges being
> reviewed by the Commissioner of Insurance your people arranged for
> David Brill to attend. We were only given 12-20 hours notice prior to
> arrival and Florida law requires you provide 48 hours. Mr. Brill's
> investigation will consume much of the rest of this message, but is
> not the full extent of the weaknesses in your case. Additional
> charges will be addressed later if need be.
>
>
>
> Brill's investigation was for the express purpose of using a
> type/style of forensic research to determine if the truck/trailer rig
> I was driving was illuminated. Mr. Brill's investigation clearly
> revealed that lights were illuminated at the time of incident, YET you
> state they were not. This is fraud! Not only did you commit attempts
> at fraud in your allegations lights were out, but when you state that
> Brill's report/testimony indicate lights were not illuminated is
> clearly a misuse of fact. You have committed fraud.
>
>
>
> Your denial of liability is an apparent attempt to maneuver the claim.
> Maneuvering the claim in this manner is fraud and attempted fraud
> itself. When you state something in an attempt to deceive, mislead,
> conceal, then you have committed FRAUD AGAIN!
>
>
>
> As we proceed we see numerous other attempts to deceive, mislead, conceal:
>
> 1) The FHP officer comment, stating lights were not illuminated is an
> attempt at fraud. The FHP report provided to you by me clearly states
> the FHP officer arrived 32 minutes after the wreck. The comment is
> irrelevant, but you use it to try to add weight to your deception.
>
> 2) The FHP officers did require the truck/trailer/wreckage be
> illuminated to depart the scene. The lights clearly worked. Your
> statement to the contrary is either a mistake or there is some
> confusion on the party you received it from, or it appears you have
> lied again. It is clear you are a liar, so there is no reason to
> trust anything you have said. Repeatedly we have asked for someone
> with integrity to be appointed to handle this case.
>
> 3) Irregardless of lights on or off, the fault in the rear-end
> collision belongs to your assured (the 18 wheeler operator). The use
> of "lights on-lights off" discussion in itself is an attempt to
> deceive, mislead, and conceal and constitutes a fraud on its own.
>
> 4) The statement you use regarding Brill's report blocking the
> tail-lights of the truck may be an attempt at fraud. Obviously, you
> are trying to mislead the recipients or anyone reading your response
> that the truck lights are "material". Your statement ignores the fact
> that the trailer lights were not obscurred, and proved by Brill's
> investigation to be illuminated. Your use of "blocking of
> tail-lights" (which is likely a lie at any rate) in itself is an
> attempt to mislead, deceive or conceal.........Pecoraro all of your
> handling is plagued with frauds.
>
> 5) John, your reference to my "possession" of the trucks, trailer,
> and wreckage is a warm up to your next set of frauds. It is an
> attempt at fraud. Meanwhile, the next set of frauds you commit IN
> YOUR FILING to the STATE COMMISSIONER! You not only continue this
> pattern of fraud, you appear to have no respect for law enforcement or
> insurance practice. (Eventually you state that I do not own any
> vehicle in the wreck. This is clearly a lie and fraud on your part.
> I sent you copy of the registration, FHP report and other such
> information was sent to your claims people early on. They would
> likely not have it otherwise because their investigation was so weak.)
>
>
>
> Allow me to outline some of your frauds in your first filing to the
> State Commissioner. At this point you have made about 5 filings to
> the State Commissioner and then placed them in the mail. These not
> only constitute fraud, but when you mailed them to me you and your
> Pusey posse committed Federal Mail fraud. Your entire organization is
> now implicated, and since Florida ethics law requires all licensed
> personnel to report any and all criminal violations to which they are
> aware, then your people are party by way of that law/connection.
>
>
>
> In your "Amended Response" (October 13, 2010) to the Commissioner of
> Insurance/Financial Services Division of the State of Florida:
>
> Fraud One: The day and date of the accident is incorrect. We have
> corrected this numerous times for you, and advised you to review your
> file and the documents we submitted to you. You have failed, not only
> perpetuating the fraud, but demonstrating lack of proper investigation
> in the process. Whoever fed this information to you is party to your
> fraud. Those who copied this type/style of error (such as Lowell
> Aptman and Michael Lee and Monica Sturm) are party to your fraud and
> attempt.
>
>
>
> Reporting times and discussions appear in error. This could be the
> result of ignorance, incompetence, or dishonesty. All are readily
> apparent throughout the dealings and correspondence with your company.
> I was advised by your claims people (Rori Strickland/Keisha Pusey)
> within the first 2 weeks that your intention is/was to deny covering
> the claim to/for your principle/assured for late reporting. It looks
> like you are holding on to this incorrect date despite many, many
> advices otherwise to cause your denial/fraud to be made evident later.
> Otherwise, why wouldn't the simplest of investigations reveal and
> correct the date. Your maneuvers at every level appear devious.
> Fortunately, one of your claims people indicated early on this was the
> plan.
>
>
>
> Attempt at fraud: Your reference advising that is your "understanding"
> that none of the vehicles in the accident belong to the driver
> (Theodore Whidden) is clearly an attempt to erode the interest of the
> victim. It is a lie stated from a position of "understanding" to hide
> the fraud. This is an attempt to deceive, conceal, mislead, meanwhile
> the FHP report and vehicle registration provided to you clearly
> indicates I am the owner of the blazer, and your opinion and
> understanding is not really worth that much to anyone at this point.
> You were sent registration paperwork within 3-4 weeks of the wreck.
> You should never have made this mistake. Improper investigation.
> Your insurance/license endorsements should cause you to be held to a
> higher standard, but your tactics are brutalizing citizens and appear
> to be "endorsed" by both your corporate parents and the State
> Insurance Commissioner (if they allow this to occur/continue).
>
>
>
> In paragraph 3 of Pecoraro's first letter to the Commissioner he
> addresses the trucker's statement. Meanwhile, Pecoraro knows the
> truck driver/company provided false insurance verification at the
> scene of the wreck. Their credibility is already in
> question/investigation, and effectively there are no credible third
> party witnesses to the wreck, nor credible insurance/claims personnel
> seen to be working on the file. The incident and handling is riddled
> with fraud.
>
>
>
> Pecoraro repeats his frivolous stance/statement: "We retained an
> accident reconstruction expert to inspect the Blazer, trailer and
> Porsche, and based on his inspection, it is our position this trailer
> was not illuminated or visible while being operated on the
> interstate."..............This is clearly fraud. The "reconstruction
> expert" is a retired FHP officer and hopefully will understand and
> recognize the use of fraud. He is now party to fraud. If he indeed
> backs up Pecoraro's LIE, then we reserve the right to use the
> recordings of Brill's attendance, and encourage him to retain those
> recordings he made. These people were clearly informed that a fraud
> case was underway prior to Brill's assignment and arrival. Further
> they were notified at the time of attendance and thereafter that all
> conversations were being recorded. NOW, if Brill sides with Pecoraro,
> then Brill himself is committing fraud. If Brill tells the truth,
> then his client who committed the fraud is clearly on the hook for his
> own crime.
>
>
>
> Pecoraro further states: "And based on the dimensions of the Porsche,
> the taillights on the Blazer were blocked from view. There are no
> known disinterested witnesses, and the investigating FHP officer
> confirmed the trailer taillights were not on when he arrived on the
> scene."
>
> These are repeated attempts at fraud from Pecoraro's October 8, 2010
> email (see below). Since ultimately the insurance company will be
> held responsible to validate these statements it would be wise to
> retain an identical blazer, Porsche, and trailer for reconstruction.
> It seems clear that the statements of the "expert" are being
> embellished. The blocking of the lights may lack proper
> reconstruction, and is not even relevant since the trailer lights were
> visible, not blocked and demonstrated illuminated by Brill's testing.
> Brill's testing was the express reason for his attendance and you have
> ignored his findings because it did not go the way you wanted. Fraud!
> (The discussion of the "blocking of the tail-lights" of the truck is
> in itself a fraud, since the trailer tested as illuminated making
> truck lights potentially irrelevant in the discussion.)
>
>
>
> Pecoraro is clearly guilty of numerous frauds, attempts at fraud, and
> other legal offenses. His stance of denying liability is in itself an
> attempt at fraud, and there are numerous frauds and attempts he uses
> to support this frivolous position. I will be encouraging law
> enforcement to investigate this particular behavior and all past
> behavior if necessary.
>
>
>
> At this juncture I would like to move forward with my life as likely
> would all others. Doctors advise me the brain damage from the wreck
> now appears permanent. I want to move on.
>
>
>
> Pecoraro, Pusey, and Strickland are unfit to be any part of future
> negotiations. Pecoraro appears to be a menace to society and a poses
> a huge criminal risk to consumers in vulnerable situations.
>
>
>
> As a first step it would be encouraging to see him dismissed from his
> position and the company, and to see the State of Florida strip him of
> his licenses and professional titles. As we have a new Commissioner
> of Insurance/Finance, and you snubbed your nose at the last one, it
> would make a strong demonstration of dedication to public good to have
> you removed from practice. Of course failing to do this in light of
> the evidence would bring undue attention to the Office of Finance for
> the State. At some point, a level headed person will be able to see
> that instead of mitigating exposure.. It is all about risk
> management.
>
>
>
> Clearly, Pecoraro would prefer to keep his criminal activity hidden
> from those around him, but this and other unlawful activity implicates
> all those held in copy. Out of respect for them and the possibility
> that wisdom will prevail I hold them all in copy..........Despite his
> request to keep his criminal activity private.....Isn't THAT an
> attempt to conceal? Fraud again!
>
>
>
> I gave you plenty of chances to change your tactics. You entrenched
> in the unlawful. Have someone from your parent company contact me to
> resolve this issue.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Ted Whidden
>
>
>
> P.S. John, since you responded to the "myriad of complaints" you
> committed fraud each time, multiple counts, multiple ways. You put
> them in the mail (or had them put in the mail) making it federal mail
> fraud. This does not look like something an intelligent, honest,
> professional would do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, John Pecoraro
> <John_Pecoraro@aequicap.com>  wrote:
>
> Mr. Whidden, I have your letters dated September 19 and October 1,
> 2010 written to Tower Group and AequiCap Claim Services. Pursuant to
> your request, I am emailing you our response to your most recent
> correspondence.
>
>
>
> According to my review of the claim file, you were correctly informed
> early on by both AequiCap Claim Representatives that there is a
> coverage issue involved in this claim. The coverage issue has to do
> with the Truck driven by Mr. Yera not being listed on the policy. As
> a result, we commenced our investigation, and are continuing to handle
> this claim under a reservation of rights as to the Truckers liability
> policy. During the course of our investigation, we determined this
> Truck was on an interstate commerce trip hauling goods under Oliva
> Delivery Services Motor Carrier Authority. There is an MCS-90
> endorsement separately attached to the Truckers policy, and as such,
> this endorsement will afford coverage for this interstate commerce
> trip. A Coverage Disclosure Affidavit and copy of the policy was sent
> to your former legal representative, Mr. Coy Browning.
>
>
>
> As you know, we had an appraiser assess the damage to the 1993 Chevy
> Blazer, 16' trailer, and 1986 Porsche that was on the trailer at the
> time of this crash. We also retained Mr. David Brill, who is a
> certified accident reconstructionist, and with your permission he
> inspected both vehicles and the trailer. We took a statement from the
> Truck driver and obtained your version of the accident as well. As
> you know, there were no known disinterested witnesses to this
> accident, and the FHP officer that handled this accident neither
> observed the trailer lights being on when he arrived at the scene, nor
> did he test whether they were working. And according to Mr. Brill's
> inspection, the dimensions of the Porsche blocked the view of the
> Blazer's taillights.
>
>
>
> Based on the results of our investigation, it is our position this
> trailer was not illuminated or visible while being operated on this
> dark, unlighted section of I-10, and that this lack of illumination
> was the cause of this accident. As a result, we are herewith denying
> liability for this claim. Finally, according to the police report,
> you are not listed as the owner of the Chevy Blazer or trailer that
> was damaged in this accident. However, since you have possession of
> the Blazer and trailer, and you advised us Mr. Browning is not
> representing you or your brother, this denial applies to all claims,
> including your brother's bodily injury claim and property damage claim
> for the damage to his 1986 Porsche.
>
>
>
> Mr. Whidden, if you feel compelled to respond to this email, I
> respectfully ask that you please direct all correspondence exclusively
> to my attention and also refrain from making defamatory comments.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> John R. Pecoraro, CPCU, SCLA
>
> Vice President, Claims
>
> AequiCap, Inc.
>
> 954-493-6565 ext 572
>
> 954-938-8689 fax
>
 
 
 
====================
 
Notice auto-reply from Susan Eylward of Elliot Orol's office:
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eylward, Susan <seylward@twrgrp.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:34 AM
Subject: Out of Office: Tower/Castle Point: Immediate response requested
To: Ted Whidden <tedwhidden@gmail.com>


I will be out of the office Monday, June 13 through Wednesday, June 15. I will be checking e-mails periodically. For immediate assistance, please contact Ruth Oren at roren@twrgrp.com  or (212) 655-7330 or Emily Redmerski at eredmerski@twrgrp.com  or (212) 655-9300. Thank you.

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. This email is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return mail and permanently delete the copy you received.
 
 

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