RICO Act Violation

Civil Filings

Buy the Book, Fraud: The Unforgivable Crime







Contact Us





'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  

Florida Filings 181935

Mail fraud 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, www.FraudDocumentation.com .

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 viewing at www.FraudDocumentation.com .  As advised to the Board of Directors on March 23, 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 www.FraudDocumentation.com .

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 (fraud)They 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.  The 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 board of directors 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.

Rori Strickland


Property Loss/Damage

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.

Ms. 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 Rori 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.

Ms. Rori 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. 

Rori 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 September 19 and October 1, 2010)

Ms. Rori 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. 

Rori 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.

Ms. Rori 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.

Rori 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, etc.

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 incident.

Equipment/gear/computers in the Porsche at the time of incident.

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 vehicle.

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.  Rori 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:

Willfill misconduct

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).

Attempted fraud leading to fraud.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

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 Laws.

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. 


624.155(1)(b)(1) 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.
624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) 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.
624.401(1) 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 this code.
624.401(2) 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.
624.401(3) 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.
624.401(4)(a) 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.


























































































































































































































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

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

Supreme Court Judge Scalia wrote concerning Pope v Illinois

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

Copyright May 2011, All rights reserved by Ted Whidden

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