is covered by
Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63
Additional information, correspondence, etc on
this case is being made accessible on the website,
All adjusters, whether company,
independent, or public, have
significant ethical obligations
in Florida. Indeed, these
adjusters even have an
obligation to turn each other
into the Department of Financial
Services. The failure to do so
is, by itself, a breach of the
adjuster’s ethical obligations:
69B-220.201. Ethical Requirements.
(Rule 3g) An adjuster
shall promptly report to the
Department any conduct by
any licensed insurance
representative of this state
which violates any provision
of the Insurance Code or
Department rule or order.
To this point it seems that every Civil Remedy Filing we have
made (and there are a "myriad" of them according to some) has been
responded to by the claims manager John
R. Pecoraro who is clearly dishonest and incompetent as has been
demonstrated in previous filings wherein the simplest of details
such as day, date and time are confused by him 9 months after the
wreck. Pecoraro is clearly
guilty of knowingly and willingly committing fraud as a course of
his normal behavior and sticking to his frivolous and devious stance
once it is revealed. John Pequeno is clearly a toxic asset to
the claim and potentially to the companies he works for. His
continued involvement after his introduction (October 8, 2010) is
clearly bad faith claims handling, and shows lack of good faith, as
his first frauds, lies, and deceptions were made at his late
introduction. In anticipation of continued bad faith
interactions with the deviant John R.
Pecoraro, I ask that each recipient to the Civil Remedy Filings
of this date respond on their own. It is everyone's best
interest for the toxic effect of Pecoraro to be fully exposed and
removed. His continued existence is actually a proof of lack
of good faith...............Pecoraro's
assignment as claims manager was presumably to manage risk.
What Pecoraro has done is MUSHROOM
the risk. He has set an unwinnable course of action with an
ever increasing cost and exposure. Early resolution is in
everyone's best interest. Very soon all correspondence,
evidence, recordings, etc will begin to be released for public
www.FraudDocumentation.com . As advised to the
Board of Directors on
2011, this can be handled privately or publicly. The choice has always been available to the responsible company, yet they chose to behave as thugs and deviants. (The March 23,
2011 notice to the Board of Directors as well as all other
correspondence is being made available for viewing at
It seems the tactic exercised by claims personnel
concerning the incident listed above are attempting what
appears to be an age old insurance trick to deny a claim
(frivolously?) which is
clearly bad faith,
and have gone so far as to lie
to support their stance
have knowingly and willingly concealed and
misrepresented information and material fact and
recently have insisted the only course of action is
litigation in court. Meanwhile
notice has been given to their board of directors
who have failed to intervene, thus making the claims
manager, board of directors, and all those party to this
file guilty of both
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
clear case of fraud to avoid the responsibility is
compounded by the outrageous, extreme, intentional, and
reckless. There is a clear pattern of
repetitive abuses, to our vulnerable position, while
the claims personnel failed in their duties to provide
good faith handling,
and to the contrary
committed fraud. Each member of the
for failing to properly act/intervene are at the least
party to the fraud and guilty of negligent infliction of
emotional distress by failing to act.
This incident stems from a rear-end collision on an open
clear stretch of Interstate 10, wherein a speeding, potentially asleep at the
wheel 18 wheeler driver rear-ended our vehicles. Our vehicles included a towed
trailer with a vehicle on the trailer. At the scene the driver gave FHP
paperwork and information confirming coverage through Aequicap. Aequicap began
by denying all coverage. They denied coverage for the driver. They denied
coverage for the truck. They denied coverage for the company the driver was
operating for. They denied existence of a policy. These are only a few of the
many lies and dishonesty shared by the adjusters at Aequicap. Eventually
Aequicap acknowledged the trucking company did have coverage of some form with
them, but this coverage did not extend to the vehicle or incident. This was
another of the many lies they told us. To this point we found there was nothing
we could believe from the adjusters. Coverage has now been implied, but not
adequately verified. There appears to be more games left for the adjuster,
claims handlers, and insurance company wish to play.
Rori Strickland began our claims/loss relationship by
telling several lies regarding how claims processes worked, how their
responsibility would be involved in the loss, and how certain things would
unfold in the loss. Ms. Rori
Strickland was dishonest early in the relationship.
She was called on it, as she was so dishonest that she often conflicted herself
within the same phone conversation. Her dishonesty did not appear to be very
well honed, but was often employed. On September 17th, 2010 about 2 1/2 weeks
after our loss we had received so much deception from Rori
Strickland we called her
apparent superior and asked to speak to an even higher level of management.
That person did not fulfill our request, and rather referred the call to
Strickland who called again later in the days to come. The incompetence and
willful/intentional misrepresentation followed by inappropriate handling and
good faith violations with alerts triggered our concerns. The deceptive tactics
of the handler and the insurance company became apparent and they persist. Now
as it transpires it appears all levels of management involved are party to the
same type and style of abuses. It appears a corporate culture. These issues
are outlined in letters to them (See correspondence on
www.FraudDocumentation.com ). We have not obtained contact with a
reputable claims person yet many months after the August 29, 2010 loss.
The claims manager and Board of Directors of the company refuse to address our
needs. Our property damages
remain unexplored by the adjuster pointing to a rather obvious violation of
failure to properly investigate the loss.
Losses include: A Chevy Blazer, A
Porsche 944, a vehicle trailer, computers, mechanical
tools, intellectual properties (documents lost), costs
to move, manage, store, and handle wreck debris.
After the initial claims denials when the loss/claim was
reported, including but not limited denial of the existence of a policy,
coverage of any form on the truck, driver, and/or company, our insistence on
attention/action which took a couple of days and multiple calls to make contact
with a proper party, Ms. Rori
Strickland was put in contact with us. She claimed to
be the property adjuster on a loss that occurred just after midnight on a
Saturday night. At first as victims we were run over by reckless handling of an
18 wheeler on an open, clear stretch of road. Now we are victims of abuse by
the claims processors and insurance company. The records of the claims group
are obviously askew because thus far their claims recaps have all been in
error. Even after correcting them on their errors in our letters (See
Florida Filings on
www.FraudDocumentation.com and in the Florida Civil Remedy systems) these
people continue to get it wrong. Their incompetence, poor claims handling,
improper recording and deception are muddying as many issues as they touch.
We have been advised verbally by the deviants involved that
they intend to deny coverage to the assured as a result of late reporting. As
they have already been informed that late reporting can only be claimed if it
precludes their ability to investigate the loss, they have used superficial
understanding of law to complicate yet another aspect of the claim. Meanwhile,
their gross incompetence, delay and deception is really all that is, has, or
will hamper handling of this loss. Their incompetence in handling the facts of
the case is clearly demonstrated in their state filings, so the anticipated
excuses of late or improper handling simply reveal their devious nature.
The day/date of the incident was August 29, at 0005 in the
morning (5 minutes after midnight) according to the FHP (Florida Highway Patrol)
report. I am not convinced the FHP report is perfect in all respects, because
we were rear-ended by a vehicle that was not seen until after the wreck. My
passenger and I were hit, shoved nearly 1/4 of a mile down the highway and left
with totaled personal vehicles, personal injuries including but not limited to
brain concussions. The basic details of the FHP report have not been properly
applied to the claims file at Aequicap/CastlePoint/Tower Group. In filings as recent as
12/15/2010 and February/April 2011 they have failed to get the day, date, and time of incident correct.
For this purpose the FHP report could have been used with some level of
success. They have failed at every turn in properly investigating, evaluating,
and handling this loss. It seems like this is some kind of joke to them.
Either they think we are idiots, or they indeed are idiots. We may have brain
damage from the wreck, but why would they continue to abuse our position???
They are trying to take an unfair advantage of our situation. It is clear
throughout the case.
Strickland lied at one point in time stating that their
liability ended if/when the vehicles were moved. This is obviously a lie, and
she was informed of this at the time. Ms. Rori
Strickland has advised where the
vehicles were located and where they would be located. She refused to send
appropriate, timely adjusters/investigators, when advised after the wreck. She
refused immediately after the wreck. She refused one week after the wreck. She
refused almost one month after the wreck. Finally, with the oversight of the
State Commissioner of Insurance/Dept of Financial Services these deviants
realized they needed to look at the trailered/towed vehicles. They scrambled to
cover their tracks and only looked at the additional vehicles when a timeline
for response was initiated by the state oversight. We now see the only way to
get a response from these deviants is to file civil remedy filings with the
state. They are abusing every opportunity they have. It is astounding the
level of deceit we are witnessing.
Strickland's delays caused a number of problems (Delay
Appears to be her intent as well as confusion). Eventually the primary victim
vehicle in the wreck was viewed at my personal farm. Rori
Strickland arranged for a
PDA (Private contractor) adjuster inspection of the driven vehicle in our
wreck. This indicates that liability did continue to the wrecked vehicles after
they were moved. Rori
Strickland's maneuver to "miss" a vehicle, or to force
coverage/liability in other directions was missed. There is a stream of
occurrences that appear to be attempted fraud
leading to fraud.
Many weeks passed. The wreck had occurred, and Rori
Strickland had lied to us so many times we had requested verbally and in writing that she
be removed from the case. (See letter
September 19, 2010) We were in contact with one of
her apparent "superiors" who was quickly determined to be similarly devious
(subject of other civil remedy filings and issues). (See letter
and October 1, 2010)
Strickland lied when she advised that personal
coverages of the vehicles in the wreck would not be affected. Coverages are now
being affected. The advices and testimony of Aequicap and insurance personnel
in each instance is questionable.
Strickland stated that since there was no liability for the
towed vehicle that coverage for that vehicle would be in effect, and no need for
them to inspect was necessary. This is a lie, and constitutes a deceptive
practice and potentially attempted fraud.
Eventually some weeks after the wreck and after involvement
of state agencies for claims oversight the towed vehicles were
inspected by an
alleged "expert" appointed by the insurance company. The towed vehicle had been
stored for an extended time following the wreck awaiting some attempt by the
adjusters to look at the vehicle. Eventually the vehicle was inspected by their
"expert" without approval of the owner/assured. This indicates they clearly
had time and access to the vehicle. It also indicates they were using the
tactic of DELAY to attempt to "miss" their responsibility. Their “excuse” for
inaccurate and delay in investigation is likely to blame someone else, but their
incompetence, inaction when action was required, and improper actions when taken
are why they continue to fumble in the dark. Rori
Strickland had previously stated
weeks before the inspection that was their intent. The extended delay, storage,
transport and handling as a result of their mishandling has heightened losses
on the property side of this loss.
They were advised in the September 19, 2010
letter that their mishandling of the claim was driving the claim costs and
increasing liability to their assured and their principle insurance company.
The insurance company was advised, and they appear to endorse this devious
behavior. The wrecked vehicles were the primary transportation for the owners.
Both automobiles in the disaster were destroyed, and the financial impact has
been devastating. The costs and losses in this regard continue to spiral out of
control with no assistance from the guilty party.
Strickland appears to be part of a semi-complicated
ploy to avoid coverage in this accident, and party to fraud, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The insurance claims handler and
insurance company appear to be maneuvering to miss their responsibility. It is
not really that creative on their part, but is dishonest and devious if not an
exhibit of incompetence at all levels in the organization. They were informed
early in to this situation that as licensed insurance professionals they were to
maintain a higher standard of behavior than they exhibit and that incompetence
is not a defense.
The Porsche a towed (trailered) vehicle was only inspected
weeks after the wreck. The inspection of the vehicles by the “expert” violated
claims protocols, notification timelines, and other insurance issues. The
inspections and adjuster reports of this and other vehicles of the accident have
not been provided, and deviant behavior with the handling of these reports is
anticipated to permeate throughout as has been seen throughout this
loss/incident investigation. We would like to see the reports submitted by
their third party investigators, adjustors, etc as well as phone logs. I
request that full reports, logs, notes, recordings, etc all be submitted to my
attention as soon as possible. Withholding of these documents, reports and
evidence may indicate future intended deviant behavior by these people.
Strickland and her company are in violation of adjuster
code of ethics by failing to given proper notice, and time of notice for the
third party inspections. This is one of the many violations they clearly
committed. Their third party forensic adjuster gave less than 24 hour notice
for his attendance, as did the adjusters in their last minute panic to cover the
tracks of incompetence and Rori
Strickland/Aequicap's failure to conduct proper and
timely accident investigation. (Failure to conduct proper and timely
investigation is one of their many faults in this situation.)
As the fog appears to be clearing on some of the
medical/mental distractions of the loss, I note that neither the third party
adjuster, nor did the "forensic" "expert" document the property losses
properly. Not only are there anticipated shortfalls and frailties in their
reporting, neither accepted the responsibility to inspect the additional third
party damages of the loss. The losses for this rear-end disaster are not
limited to a truck, a trailer, and a trailered vehicle. There were computers
and equipment and original documents in the truck, trailer and towed vehicle
that have not been considered, inspected, nor "adjusted". There is clearly a
shortfall in the investigations of the adjuster. Failure to properly
investigate the loss continues well in to the New Year. They missed a wide
array of factors in the property side of this loss in regards to various
equipment, tools, electronics, and intellectual documents that were blown all
over the highway. Clearly they have missed in their investigation if this is a
surprise to them.
At the time of the third party adjuster's attendance and
the "forensic" expert (as I recall) there was equipment and paperwork in the
vehicle awaiting their inspection. The condition of the vehicle(s) were
preserved to a point, but since the windows were blown out of all vehicles by
the horrible crash of an 18 wheeler at 100 MPH while the driver was asleep at
the wheel, the equipment was eventually removed. The failure of the claims
people to react properly and efficiently compromised the
investigation.................NOTE: The insurance companies/claims adjuster
devious tactics appear to be trying to avoid coverage by way of late
notification. Late notification and the complications to such a frivolous claim
has been covered in my previous letters to them. The inability to properly
investigate is strictly the adjuster's fault at failing to heed advices. This
is further misconstrued by the continued lack of good faith, misrepresentation,
Damages sustained at the time of the incident which have
obviously missed the attention of the adjusters by way of their own incompetence
or mis-management to avoid responsibility include but are not limited to:
Computer equipment in the Chevy Blazer at the time of
Equipment/gear/computers in the Porsche at the time of
Intellectual property including but not limited to the
notes, investigation proofs, evidences, copyrights, etc blown all over the
roadway from the blown out windows and massive debris trail. (It was clearly
noteworthy that proof documents from an overseas study were blown all over the
road from the wreck).
Tools and equipment for working on the towed vehicle.
Securing equipment and towing equipment for the towed
The insurance adjusters(??) or claims handlers and
insurance company claim to have a statement from an attending FHP officer. We
would like to see this statement as its apparent use seems to be part and parcel
of some more of their deviant behavior. Clearly a complete statement from the
FHP officer would note the paperwork strewn widely over the road surface that
night, the source of the FHP officer's crash information, and the road study
conducted. We would like copies of all of this to evidence proper
investigation. As they dig deeper into what is and was originally their job we
anticipate they may have fresh, new, and accurate perspective on the facts of
the case, or they will remain in the dark because of the early attempts to avoid
their responsibility. We look forward to some integrity and talent being
applied to this file for resolution. The losses are massive and mounting. We
need to find a person of integrity to deal with.
The level of gross incompetence exhibited herein by
adjusters/claims handlers and insurance company is not only an example of lack
of training, absence of proper investigation principles, but at this late date
reflects even more substantially on the lack of management and oversight. The
claims personnel and systems are severely flawed.
The first rejection of this claim occurred on Monday,
August 30, 2010 at 1030 hours when the victims were advised by Aequicap that the
policy on the truck (18 Wheeler) was invalid. This is the actual time the claim
was reported. Aequicap’s file and their statements to the State are clearly in
error. Error is primarily fault of the adjusters/claims handlers and their
managers for failure to properly investigate and failure to properly record
their findings. This was said to be the first reporting to the claims handlers.
The second rejection of this claim occurred on Monday,
August 30, 2010 at 1110 hours when the victims were advised by CastlePoint that
the policy on the truck (18 Wheeler) was invalid. The 1110 hour phone call was
said to be the first notice of claim/loss to the insurance company.
CastlePoint’s personnel (Cindy) advised there was no coverage for the truck,
driver, or company.
On August 31, 2010 the victims of the crash tried
repeatedly to reach someone at the insurance company named in the policy
(Aequicap), only to find they are merely a third party claims handler utilizing
delay tactics to avoid the claims process. At 1510 hours victim speaks to
Pusey who assumes the responsibility for the personal injury loss if
any. At 1525 hours (approximately) the devious Ms. Pusey advises that a
“liability assessment” will be completed by the end of the week. Ms. Pusey is
addressed because the nature of the wreck (rear-end collision on an open clear
stretch of road by a speeding 18 wheeler) does not require her “assessment”.
Pusey is advised that any attempt to sidestep liability will appear dishonest
and deceptive. At 1530 hours speak with Rori Strickland who alleges to be the
property adjuster handling the physical damages.
On September 1, 2010 at 1330 hours Rori Strickland advises
there is a coverage issue with the truck and VIN listing for the vehicle
responsible in the incident. Rori
Strickland advises that once coverage is resolved
then adjusters will contact the victims. Meanwhile, Rori
Strickland claims to be
assigning independent adjusters/inspectors for the wreck, but this is a lie.
Strickland fails to assign adjusters and drops the ball on notifying the
victims. The deceptions or attempts at deception began early and have continued
through each contact with these claims people.
The property damage claims people and their management are
clearly guilty of:
Willful and intentional negligence and deception.
Failure to properly investigate
Incompetence, poor claims handling, improper recording
Gross incompetence, delay and deception
Misrepresentation: Late/Short notice for attendance (less
that 48 hours to attend).
leading to fraud.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Numerous Ethics Violations
The claims personnel have been advised that we intend to
hold them personally, privately, and corporately responsible for their devious
behavior. This includes, but is not limited to pursuing action against their
personal licenses to the full extent allowable under Florida, State, and Federal
As early as September 17, 2010 we advised the claims
personnel to alert their E&O (Errors and Omissions) underwriters concerning the
behavior and early violations we cited.
||Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when,
under all the circumstances, it could and should have done
so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and
with due regard for her or his interests.
||Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not
accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under
which payments are being made.
||Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly
settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has
become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance
policy coverage in order to influence settlements under
other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
||No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its
agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall
directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state
except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of
authority issued to the insurer by the office, except as to
such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in
||No insurer shall from offices or by personnel or
facilities located in this state solicit insurance
applications or otherwise transact insurance in another
state or country unless it holds a subsisting certificate of
authority issued to it by the office authorizing it to
transact the same kind or kinds of insurance in this state.
||This state hereby preempts the field of regulating
insurers and their agents and representatives; and no
county, city, municipality, district, school district, or
political subdivision shall require of any insurer, agent,
or representative regulated under this code any
authorization, permit, or registration of any kind for
conducting transactions lawful under the authority granted
by the state under this code.
||Any person who acts as an insurer, transacts insurance,
or otherwise engages in insurance activities in this state
without a certificate of authority in violation of this
section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.