A letter from:
www.tedwhidden.com> ">Ted Whidden
Chipley, Florida 32428
www.tedwhidden.com> "> TedWhiddenEmailAddress
Letter #2 appealing for Good Faith justice, October 1, 2010
Good Faith/Fraud/Attempted Fraud
Date of Loss: August 28/29, 2010, MM274 I-10 W/B, near Live Oak, Florida
Description of loss: Oliva Delivery Service/Olive Trucking 18 wheeler rear ending Blazer while towing a Porsche
Frank R. Delgado driving for Oliva Trucking/Delivery rear-ends www.tedwhidden.com> "> Ted Whidden in Chevy Blazer
Thank you very much for the attention given to my letter concerning a recent incident and interactions with your claims agents which I brought to your attention. This incident was outlined in part in a letter of September 19, 2010 sent to your authorized claims agent/handler/adjuster Aequicap of Florida with copy sent to you. A complete set of all letters is presented herein so that your legal counsel will have them for their file.
Unfortunately, the person (Lowell Aptman) who responded from your office (CastlePoint/Tower) on your behalf demonstrated gross incompetence in many aspects of his review. I will review some of the noted incompetence herein, but what I am finding is the severe amount of bad faith, incompetence, leading to what appears to be attempted fraud and potentially acts/inactions constituting fraud runs rampant on your team. Your endorsement (and the endorsement of those working on your behalf) of the bad faith and potentially fraud attempts of your appointed agents serve to involve you in their deceptions. A state/federal investigation is being initiated in to these matters with the State Commissioner of Insurance being involved in our state. Your agent has been notified. As stated in my original letter of 19 September 2010, incompetence by professional claims handlers is likely not a good defense for bad faith and fraud. Your people are representing their position from a perception of authority to the public.
The intention of my letter of September 19, 2010 was in part to address or stop of abuses by your agent/handler/partner Aequicap. Your apparent acknowledgement/endorsement of their unlawful behavior tends to indicate this is a handling maneuver found in your written or implied company operation procedures. The Commissioner of Insurance in Florida and in your state may be interested in looking into your handling abuses and your endorsement of such abuses by your agents. Further, the DBPR (Division of Business and Professional Regulations) will likely find interesting issues if/when a review of the client files are made. This will likely be reflected by violations of licensed individuals and ratings issues with the good people at AM Best. Unfortunately, ignorance and incompetence at the highest and lowest level of the organization may reflect a culture unworthy of the practice of insurance. The claims incompetence may reflect poorly on your ability to manage claims on behalf of both assured and the underwriter companies you represent. I again call for a notification of your General Counsel and your E&O underwriters, because your handling of material issues is subject to impact on their policies of coverage. I will proceed to make my review of documents public so that your re-insurance pool can learn more about the operations of those under your employ.
To address the respondent Lowell Aptman who sent letter dated 23 September 2010 on your behalf, received 1 October 2010, please be advised that you responded on behalf of the CEO of your operation and your letter reveals a severe amount of incompetence and ignorance. For some reason you give no “title” from which you state your “opinion” from. Your opinion on Good Faith/Bad Faith would be in question at any rate, but since you perceive no evidence of bad faith in the material stated in my letter, you demonstrate you have no knowledge of the subject. Further, since you mis-state virtually all aspects of the situation/loss, you demonstrate incompetence in your team to either capture or re-state simple facts of a loss. Your ignorance of the matter tends to overshadow your opinion even if your opinion was correct. Mr. Aptman, you are either a very bad lawyer, or you are not a lawyer at all. Since you are rendering an opinion on a material fact in a legal situation this likely puts you in a position of practicing law without a license. This is unlawful in most states, and since your opinion and the stance of your company is one of “authority” and since you are incorrect on all material counts, then you are acting outside the scope of your ability and stature. I will clarify a few of your mistakes hereunder to demonstrate some of the deception with which you are operating under. Meanwhile your intended deception is in and of itself an example of bad faith, because you attempt to mislead the public, and you materially lie in the process, from a position of perceived “authority”.
It was difficult to receive the letter sent by Aptman on 23 September 2010 because you sent it to the wrong P.O. Box, using a mail/courier method that does not deliver to post office boxes, both counts demonstrating a lack of attention to detail. It is only by stroke of luck that the courier driver knew me and someone who they could leave the letter with to get it to me. In your paragraph one you advise you have reviewed my complaint and the file. This does not appear to be true because of your gross misrepresentation of the facts. Your paragraph two and your header includes the details of a loss, but they are mostly in error. Note you have the wrong day, date, time of loss, and assured. Your reporting times and manner in which it was reported is also incorrect. Your reference to what the Aequicap claims (in para 2) handler is held in question, because the reason for www.tedwhidden.com> ">correspondence from me sent on 19 September 2010 is the gross misrepresentation of material issues and abuses of your agent Aequicap. You state that a liability investigation is pending. How are you moving forward with that investigation? Are you indeed or is it another delay tactic? You are correct in one instance in your letter, wherein you advise the Blazer and a trailer was inspected. I was advised by your adjuster that she would address this and resolve both the stance on this vehicle and coverage issues within 3-5 days of that report. She failed to follow up even at this late juncture some weeks later. As one can clearly see they lied in this instance. One of the subjects of my 19 September 2010 letter is the misdirection and delay brought about by Ms. Rory Strickland in this specific situation. You further lie about attempts to locate and inspect the Porsche. Your claims agent Rory Strickland refused to send an adjuster to look at the vehicle when the opportunity was given. Not only did your adjuster refuse to have someone look at the vehicle on your behalf, but lied about sending a third party adjuster. During a single conversation your adjuster said things like she “would” send them, or she “had” sent them. I took detailed notes of this conversation because it was so obvious she was lieing. Your Ms. Strickland was advised where the vehicle was and what was required for access immediately upon her contact. She refused to follow the protocol of yard where it had been hauled. Since she refused to have her agent view it where it was she was advised the vehicle would have to be moved and could not be left there long term without someone having to pay storage. The vehicle was moved to and stored in an area owned/operated by a large vehicle auction/liquidator because it was damaged beyond repair and this seemed to be the only option (disposal through salvage sale). It was held there for auction/review/disposal an abnormal amount of time (almost one month) awaiting some form or resolution or inspection of the vehicle. Over one month has passed since the accident. Your agent purposely navigated the claim to miss this vehicle inspection opportunity. It is no longer available at the Co-Parts Auto Salvage/Auction area to be inspected. Your agent was well aware of this, but I would anticipate their phone logs and documents have been well doctored. The source of my original complaint was the lack of integrity of this person Rory Strickland.
There was a third party adjuster sent to inspect the Blazer and they were advised to closely examine the trailer. Your third party adjuster/inspector responded stating that no kind of study was warranted since the trailer had been through such a terrible ordeal. If an investigation was to be done it should have occurred at that time. If you have any intention to do any form of “investigation” it needs to be done promptly. Your delays and incompetence are the only impediments to this claim/loss. This appears part of the planned deception, and will likely be part of your excuse(s) in your own mishandling, thus demonstration of bad faith and fraud. These vehicles (both the Blazer and Porsche) were primary vehicles of the owners. What is your intention with delay to cause financial distress to the victims? Do you people expect that someone store all these vehicles and junk indefinitely? What makes you think that notification by you many weeks after the event would allow the average person to store and maintain all the vehicles and crash evidence? It seems that your delay and apparent incompetence is an effort to trip up others. This smells of fraud and attempted fraud. The lies and deception is becoming a bit confusing. Is that your goal? One would anticipate that since you have messed up all the material aspects of this file and recap of this file that either you have not done a proper job, or your agent has not. In any effect you on behalf of the CEO of your underwriting group endorses the incompetence exhibited thus far. This makes you party to the fraud and attempted fraud. If this is how you and your group handles claimants then you should be punished for these abuses.
As for the letter to which you refer sent 7 September 2010 and received 9 September 2010 from Coy Browning, my 19 September 2010 letter sufficiently addresses that. Since you cannot seem to read, I will recap your position, Mr. Browning’s, and mine in this regard. Line one of paragraph three. My letter of 19 September 2010 withdraws Mr. Browning from your contact list, yet you continue to harass him. Furthermore, the phone call to Ms. Pusey referred to in the 19 September 2010 demonstrates her act of fraud in calling and lieing to the paralegal of Mr. Browning’s office after she was specifically ordered to leave him alone. Further to the subject of that phone call Ms. Pusey advised the paralegal that she had spoken with my brother Ken and he authorized the phone call. This is a lie. She has never spoken to my brother Ken. If Ms. Pusey was adhering to the “attorney letter” then she should have never spoken with my brother or claimed to. You see in fraud, no matter what you do it is a lie………This is another attempt at fraud to deceive the paralegal. Ms. Pusey was addressed twice on that day, and in the letter of 19 September……………Further to this you and she were asked to contact me via e-mail, but you have failed to follow instructions. You were asked to have nothing to do with Mr. Browning, but failed to follow instructions. These are bad faith attempts to circumvent the offended party. The Aequicap claims handler in her letter responding to what she perceived was an attorney letter advised that she was sending a certified copy of a policy. This was a lie, because to my knowledge she never sent it. Weeks have passed now, and it has not been sent/nor received. If in fact she had sent it certified as she says, then she should have evidence in her file. If she does not, then this is another instance of fraud and deception. Either she sent it or not, either way it appears to be an act or attempt at fraud. See my 19 September 2010 letter for clarity on the fraud issue. Meanwhile, Ms. Pusey attempted to contact the attorney. He did not respond because he was advised not to respond. We further advised Pusey that I would follow up in writing. She failed to heed my advice and called the attorney office immediately after that advice. This is covered clearly in my 19 September 2010 letter. It appears your people are devious with the intent to defraud the victims/injured parties at every turn. Do you still fail to see this?
Because of the misleading information at the initial notification and handling of the claim including but not limited to driver providing what appears to be false insurance evidence at the scene, and the underwriter/adjuster (Aequicap) rejecting coverage, my brother and I sought legal counsel for ideas on how to get our losses addressed. The legal counsel at Browning Law Firm prematurely launched a letter on 7 September 2010. That letter initiated a frivolous demand letter from Aequicap requiring a whole grocery list of items needed if we intended to pursue a personal injury case. The Aequicap letter sent in response to Browning’s letter advised a certified copy of a policy was being sent. To this point that policy has not been received from what I understand. Was this failure to fulfill the Aequicap letter and send the policy another deception? Seems so…………..Having received the set of demands from the Aequicap underwriter/adjuster (Pusey) we felt the attorney letter where having been sent at an inappropriate time may have served a purpose for Pusey to clear her desk of her demands and then put one aspect of the Aequicap phone calls and deception at rest. The appearance was that since such a long and abnormal set of demands was sent, then nothing more was needed for her or from her, so we waited for the promised policy which apparently was never sent. Her certified mail records may shed some light of truth or deception on this………….Meanwhile, while waiting for the dust to settle on the letters, we asked the law firm to stand down and not to correspond or communicate in any way, shape or form with the adjuster. We waited anticipating that the adjuster had made a complete set of demands, and since we were “put on notice” by Pusey as to what they needed that they should be awaiting a response. It appears that Pusey lied about sending the policy. Her follow-up phone calls to the attorney were unwarranted, so her claim to have called the attorney’s office on 15 and 17 September were unwarranted. Most specifically her contact initiated by herself on 17 September was immediately after I had advised her not to have anything to do with the Attorney, and that a withdrawal letter of this attorney from the case was to be prepared. Her phone logs if accurate will reveal her devious intent in this regard. This is also outlined in my 19 September 2010 letter. You can find it by searching for the word “devious” in the letter. Even with the limited competence and dishonesty of someone like someone like Ms. Pusey or Ms. Strickland one should be able to see that extent of injuries 3 weeks after your 18 wheeler slammed in to our vehicle are developing. Ms. Pusey’s zeal to apparently find out a value and a timeline for paying a personal injury claim over rode her sensibilities and her nature to properly handle legal matters. Meanwhile, to address what seems to be her only concerns (amount and timeline of payment) you were advised in my 19 September 2010 letter. You were also advised that claims handling and abuses are escalating legal costs and claims issues. She should have immediately advised her supervisor, and the supervisor should have immediately gotten involved. Neither appears to have happened properly. This is an example of bad faith.
The problem I see is that your people lie, they lie quickly and often at every juncture. This is going to be a bit complicated for some to follow because of the extensive amount of lies that you have told and your many deceptive tactics. The most interesting aspect is that in such a short time your people have lied so much that you, yourselves have trouble navigating through the detail. Oddly, they lie so much, that in several instances we find that your lie (if you really believe in your stated position) violates another law. When you try to cover up that lie, you end up violating yet another law. This is a clue to your deceptive practices. It was so rampant with the first few days of communication with your adjusters that a good faith investigation was initiated within days of the loss.
In regards to Mr. Browning virtually everything you state is in error. For the record Mr. Browning sent a letter stating he was representing us for personal injury only. Read the letter. If you want to use it in this regard, you should at least use it. Since it clearly states he represents for personal injury, then no letter to the contrary is needed to clarify anything about property damages or any other. Since the time when his letter came to you, I advised both verbally and in writing that Browning law firm did not represent us. That was further made clear in the 19 September 2010 letter which is all you need. Besides if you are using the Browning letter as a “shield” for not corresponding to me, then why are you corresponding with me right now? If you are responding to my 19 September 2010 letter, then why are you copying the Browning Law firm at all? You see your deceptions are always in conflict with your other actions or inactions. This is another example of bad faith. It is part of your corporate culture it appears.
Mr. Lee/Mr. Aptman/Mr. Pecoraro, focus with me just one moment on the general concept of the attorney Coy Browning letter of 7 September 2010 said to be received by your office 9 September 2010. It looks like you are trying or going to try to hide behind this letter for not complying with your responsibilities in this loss. Mr. Aptman, if you are to hide behind that letter then please advise why you sent the letter of September 23, 2010? This is in violation of the letter you hide behind! Further to this look to my 19 September 2010 letter where I addressed this. The subject of the letter is a series of phone calls on 17 September with Keisha Pusey where she tries the same maneuver. I spoke with her at 1120 am (1220 Miami time) and 1150 am (1250 Miami time) and she spoke with the attorney office of Coy Browning on 1132 (1242 Miami time) that same day, thus calling the law office between the two phone calls. If Pusey is honoring your current interpretation (misunderstanding) of the letter that your dealings went thru Browning, then why did she speak to me the first time? Why did she speak to me the second time? She is in violation of the letter you hide behind. Meanwhile, she was advised officially in my first phone call with her that the Browning Law office was sent in error, and that I would be sending a letter (at her request to clear it up). If Ms. Pusey was anticipating a letter to clear up the confusion, then why did she immediately pick up the phone and lie to the Browning Law office paralegal? You see if you hide behind the letter you cannot explain why either of you communicate with me, yet if you are communicating with me as you have, then you are in violation of your misunderstanding of the letter. You see fraud and attempted fraud is a tangled web. You are caught lieing no matter which way you turn…………….Now, to more directly address the letter of 7 September 2010 from Browning Law firm. As stated my 19 September 2010 letter the letter of 7 September from Browning should have never been sent. I have already apologized for this. Since your operation uses deception at every turn I specifically asked the Browning Law Firm to do nothing so that they would not fall prey to your tactics of confusion, bad faith, fraud, and deception. Meanwhile, the letter specifically says in paragraph one that Browning represents us for injuries. Even if you adhered to the letter, the specific intent of the letter is/was limited. No further clarification should be necessary. You are using this letter now to avoid all your obligations.
When I clarified in my phone call to Pusey that the attorney was to be withdrawn from the file, and advised that I would immediately send a letter to clarify it, she immediately picked up the phone and lied to the paralegal. You see the difficulty I see in all this is bad faith, fraud, and attempted fraud is a way of life or corporate culture with the way you people do business……….Now, let’s look at the subject of the 17 September 2010, 1120 am phone call referenced above to Pusey: The POINT of the original phone call of 1120 am was to advise Pusey that I needed to speak to her counterpart Strickland’s manager, and that the lack of integrity, lies, and deceptions by her counterpart was causing a problem. The point of my initial phone call to Pusey was to tell her that I had spotted good faith handling issues in their manner in dealing with the claim/case/loss at each juncture and I was appealing to managerial level and oversight. You see, leading up to this point the misdirection and deceptions (lies) of the adjuster(s) in question had become so great as to violate any level of trust that might be needed to resolve this. As one can see in my 19 September 2010 letter we continue to appeal to find someone to come forward to reasonably address and consider our physical damages to our vehicles. No matter how you perceive this, Pusey was violating good faith issues in trying to circumvent either the attorney or the injured party. There are good faith issues, because after appealing to managerial levels in both the 17 September phone call and my 19 September letter and to date no one has followed up. This is bad faith at the incompetent adjuster level and the managerial level.
To this point we do not know the full extent of our personal injuries. The mental stress and duress is overwhelming, and this deception, fraud, and attempted fraud is making pressures intense. As one can imagine manipulation of the data and events at this juncture appears part of your negotiating tactics. I believe there is not only an established pattern of fraud and deception, but it has become so common place in your organization that your people may no longer see their abuses.
You have not conducted a proper claims review, nor has your agent acted properly. Your efforts to create confusion and misdirection seem willful, especially in light of my letter to you advising you as such, and your failure to properly respond. Meanwhile, your request to have Browning respond to your request is mute, because I address this in the 19 September 2010 letter. You seem to fail to follow and understand instructions. Much of this appears to be attempts to go around a single focal point in the loss so you can create similar misdirection and fraud as attempted thus far. Since your adjuster(s) have already attempted to contact the attorney group and lied in the process, then why would anyone desire these abuses to continue? These are all attempts at fraud. Do you understand?
Mr. Aptman, In your letter, paragraph 4, you advise that Aequicap will “hasten to complete their investigation, continue efforts to communicate, and provide their position….” If they hasten to do anything it will be a new tactic. Their intentional delay and avoiding of their responsibility has been proven and will likely continue. Their efforts to communicate have been riddled with lies and deception, and their position has not been made clear. It is re-iterated that they need to bring in a new level or integrity, a different set of claims handlers, and need to contact me via e-mail on all aspects of this loss both for me and my brother as outlined in the letter of 19 September 2010. I can be contacted at www.tedwhidden.com> "> tedwhidden(EmailAddress). To this point, my request for managerial involvement has been ignored since 17 September.
My understanding from discussions with your assured (Oliva Delivery), with your appointed claims handler/adjuster (Aequicap) and from contacts with CastlePoint (and now Tower Group, Inc) is that your stance on this claim is to deny the claim due to late notification. Please understand that rejecting a claim for late notification is only lawful if the underwriter/insurance company can demonstrate it was materially harmed by way of the late notification. By copy to Oliva Delivery Services and their legal counsel, I advise them that they may be in position to pursue legal action against their underwriters/agents for an illegal/unlawful denial/handling of their loss/claim. By copy to the State Commissioner of Insurance we make note to the good faith/fraud investigation ongoing with this claim. The assured (Oliva Delivery Services) can have their legal counsel contact us and we will gladly support them in the effort for their fraud/attempted fraud/bad faith case against the underwriter. What Oliva Delivery Services should see and understand is they have paid a premium for a service. The contract of insurance is binding if/when premium is paid, and denial based on late notification by Aequicap is likely unlawful/illegal if based on late notification. Once they demonstrate knowledge of this to the underwriters/claims handlers then the underwriter/claims handler must demonstrate what their material loss or harm is as a result of the “delay”. Since the notification of the claim was given on Tuesday morning after a midnight Saturday (morning Sunday) mishap then Aequicap/CastlePoint/Tower must demonstrate what is their material “loss” or what “evidence” of the loss/case was compromised as a result of the late notification. What will be found is likely that the misdirection, deception, and incompetence of the Aequicap claims handlers created the only material deterioration of the assured/underwriter’s position. Aequicap appears to be playing a game as a matter of routine with assured and claimants, and this again will evidence bad faith and potentially fraud. The State Commissioner of Insurance and DBPR will likely want to review more of your files in this regard so make sure everything remains in order. The continued delay, misdirection, and deception by the Aequicap claims handlers is increasing the amount of loss financially as well as making the suffering of the victims in the loss more extensive than it must be. As one can imagine the destruction of two primary vehicles by a client company and the delay/misdirection by the claims handlers greatly complicates the stress and financial duress of the victims. Very likely the assured (Oliva Delivery) is equally agitated and economically disturbed.
For the benefit of those (investigators) held in copy, a file review/audit of files in the possession of Aequicap, CastlePoint, Tower, and their agents, subsidiaries, and affiliates appear to have made denial of claims for late notification a way of life or part of their corporate culture. Note the case in point to which I am writing, the underwriters/agents began speaking of denial by way of late notification as soon as they were notified, and further have maintained that stance and avoided their opportunity, responsibility, and obligation to fulfill their fiduciary duties to the parties involved. What this case will likely demonstrate is the willful and purposeful avoidance of their obligations. Review of their files will likely demonstrate this is tactic is not only unlawful, but has become part of their corporate culture. This being said this makes this a very large, well orchestrated bad faith way of life within their operation. If/when a class action is launched in this regard, we would like to be involved. If one has not been initiated, let’s do so at this time.
Mr. Aptman, Mr. Pecoraro and to those held in copy: Here is an example of lack of good faith handling at the managerial level. Based on the 23 September 2010 letter I am to assume that Mr. John Pecoraro is a manager over this situation. I have not contact or had a name for this person at this position prior to receiving the 23 September 2010 letter. Meanwhile, on or about 16 September 2010 I began asking the adjusters to refer the issues herein to their supervisors because they lacked the integrity and sincerity in their pursuits. This issue is further addressed in my 19 September 2010 letter where I state that if the manager does not contact me we must wonder if that manager has dropped the ball or has his people failed to advise him. Either way it is (not?) a demonstration of bad faith. Since the letter from Tower Group on 23 September 2010 acknowledges my 19 Sept letter and advises the manager, why hasn’t the manager been in contact? This is another one of those examples where the lies and deceptive practices of Aequicap leaves them in a “dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” situation. It is the nature of bad faith, fraud, and attempted fraud that leaves a claims handler in this situation at times. We will see it continue. The root cause is deceptive practices.
It is unfortunate that with so much deception and confusion that no one except for the violated parties/victims are prepared to address the actual merits of the case, and to this point the major/only issue being addressed is the mishandling of the case. We have asked repeatedly for someone to merely address the simple, straight forward losses to our personal property. One would think that a reputable claims handling group could have expeditiously addressed all physical damages in this instance and likely resolved them even if they negotiated in good faith to settle using the assured’s money. One way or another the physical damages/total losses to our vehicles and equipment could be addressed, but the subject of the loss itself has been ignored. This is not only an example of lack of good faith in dealing with the victims, but it is likely a lack of good faith by the underwriter/claims handler in dealing with their own assured. This has escalated pressures, costs, and involvement in settling a potentially simple loss. Meanwhile, my brother and I are out our everyday vehicles, out of work at times, and dealing with injuries as a direct result of the loss. We have been pursuing our property damages from day one, yet the claims handler has refused at times to send inspectors, has lied repeatedly, and has been offensive at every turn. A simple question one could ask is why hasn’t our property damages been addressed? Is there any real reason? With so much deception and confusion, can you understand why we are awaiting some clarity before discussing any injuries we may have? Can anyone see the amount of damages and confusion brought about by claims mishandling practices and can you see the damages from the claims process?
For the peace of mind of all involved, I am asking the Browning Law Firm now send a letter withdrawing themselves from this case for now, and ask they send me complete copy of their file including the “certified copy” of the Aequicap policy if/when it ever arrives with time/date stamps indicating when it was received. I thank you for your cooperation during this challenging time.
Mr. Aptman and Mr. Pecoraro, your files are subject of an ongoing investigation. How can so much go so wrong so fast? Corporate culture?
Mr. Pecoraro, Aptman, and Pusey, since you are likely looking for an opportunity to act in good faith and demonstrate your intent to comply, Note the demands of the Coy Browning Law Firm letter of 7 September 2010, acknowledged by you as received on 9 September 2010. It is now more than 3 weeks after your receipt of that letter. Your opportunity to comply has now expired. If you were indeed operating in “good faith” then you would have gathered the documents in anticipation of the attorney involvement issue was to be resolved. If you find yourself (erroneiously) subject of the Browning letter then you should have sent the completed package as requested. Have you? Good faith? If you did not send the package, you should at least have it put together for on forwarding. Good faith? At this point, you should be able to overnight the completed package to whoever is the rightful recipient. You are instructed to immediately overnight the completed package to my attention at my physical address listed as Post Office Box 158, Chipley, Florida 32428. Your prompt compliance is appreciated.
Mr, Aptman, I am struggling with a few things and the thought behind your letter of 23 September 2010. Are you aware that the phone number AND email for the alleged “claims manager” John Pecoraro of Aequicap is WRONG?? What kind of idiot are you? I am sorry. As I continue to work through the handling of this claim the word “idiot” keeps popping up in regards to your letter and the handling by Aequicap. I am sorry. You may not see my point, but others may.
In following up from your potential compliance with the paragraph above, please subsequently and separately (if need be) send copies of all the PDA (third party) claims adjuster/investigator reports to my attention at the P.O.Box that I list above. Further to this, I have recently (0900 hours LT, 9/28/2010) been contacted by a forensic investigator for the purpose of looking at the Blazer and trailer. Please forward copy of his reports as soon as received. It is noted that great activity and attention is now being given to what may be proper investigation. This is brought up, because the investigator contacted me via phone and was advised to follow up in writing via e-mail as per previous requests. It is important for all involved to properly document their actions and inactions for the purpose of if nothing else the oversight that is now looking at this file. I appreciate the shift in activity and interest noted since their involvement.
I apologize in advance for any delays on my part. I am unable to focus on this for long with the head injuries I sustained in the accident, yet since I cannot work properly I remain the designated party to handle these issues. My head injuries were mentioned in the 19 September letter and prior to that in discussions with the adjuster. If one simply takes a look at the vehicle(s) in the crash, the broken seat backs from the rear impact, and the head injuries demonstrated, one can see why the adjuster might want to use confusion and misdirection to their advantage. Folks, this is a rear-end crash on a straight, open highway at/around midnight on a clear night. There is clear coverage, fault and liability. Unfortunately, other handling issues are clouding a rather simple, but potentially overwhelming situation. I assure you that prompt resolution of this claim is in everyone’s best interest, so that we can go on with the lives left from the disaster.
www.tedwhidden.com> ">Ted Whidden
www.tedwhidden.com> ">www.www.tedwhidden.com> (Email)
Copy to all:
Original “copy” of letter September 19, 2010
Copy of letter received from Tower Group behalf of CastlePoint’s CEO Michael Lee
Copy of Aequicap letter to Coy Browning
Copy of first page of Coy Browning letter
Michael Lee, CastlePoint/Tower Group
Lowell Aptman, Tower Group/CastlePoint
John Pecoraro, CPCU/SCLA, 954-493-6505, [email protected]
Aequicap Claims, General Counsel
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