From http://www.insurancejustice.com/
These are only a few excerpts and the myriad stories of butchery.
PLEASE visit their site. What is here, is merely representative.
They have gotten thousands of emails and have archives of the stuff.
How many cases does it take to make the pattern of criminal
insurance and completely corrupt government completely OBVIOUS?
Denying this truth is no different from Denying Buchenwald.
More Excerpts
From kana@fcol.com Thu Dec 16 02:58:42 1999
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:41:45 -0500
From: The Insurer Crime Outline
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline -- Hammering Allstate
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories: How to Hammer Allstate; Smiling Animals; Looking
for Supports; Red Flag at Morning
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hot CLE Class: Hammering Allstate
Trial lawyers in many states, irked over its tactics, target insurer
Mark Ballard The National Law Journal December 10, 1999
The course was called "How to Hammer Allstate," and the Connecticut
Trial Lawyers Association knew it was on to something when it sold
out before the advertising fliers were printed.
Other states report similar success with the same topic. In fact,
the Allstate seminar has become the hot ticket for fulfilling the
usually unexciting obligation to engage in continuing legal education
(CLE). The class has been drawing record crowds across the country--and
the reason is Allstate.
That's no surprise to many plaintiffs' lawyers. Allstate Insurance
Co., many trial lawyers contend, tries to discourage low-damage lawsuits
by fully litigating cases that it once routinely settled.
"There's a sense of righteous indignation," says Robert I. Reardon
Jr., who organized the Connecticut seminar.
Despite efforts to ensure that no defense counsel or member of the
public has access to the seminar and its course materials, news of
the classes has spread among trial lawyers across the nation. The
first was held last February in Washington state, and more have followed.
In October alone, trial lawyer groups in Connecticut, Louisiana and
Texas held "How to Hammer Allstate" seminars. Oregon has one scheduled
for March; Alaska, one in January.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), which has never
held a seminar targeting a specific company, held a CLE telephone
conference on Allstate.
"Allstate is unusual," says ATLA spokesman Carlton Carl. "They have
shown a pattern."
"It started as a grassroots effort," says Mr. Reardon, of the Reardon
Law Firm P.C., in New London, Conn. He heard about the Washington
seminar, liked the idea and put one together for Connecticut.
About 320 lawyers attended the Oct. 1 class in Hartford, Conn. Since
then, he says, he has received a dozen calls from other states asking
for information.
"I think we're in our early stages of recognizing the problem, and
we're in the early stages of trying to deal with it collectively,"
says Alonzo T. Stanga III, of Stanga & Mustian P.L.C., of Metairie,
La. Mr. Stanga chairs the auto tort section of the Louisiana Trial
Lawyers Association. He says that the Louisiana meeting, held in
Baton Rouge on Oct. 29, attracted about 225 lawyers. His auto tort
section picked up 46 new members there.
Behind the lawyers' ire with Allstate is their belief that it purposely
forces trial with lowball offers, particularly in cases in which
the vehicle damage is less than $1,000, minimal soft tissue injuries
are claimed and the claimant hires an attorney.
At trial, Allstate litigates aggressively at every step, demanding
a jury, putting on experts and making plaintiffs prove liability.
As a result, overall litigation costs sometimes exceed damages.
ALLSTATE'S POSITION
Allstate is proud of its hardball litigation policy, says William
Vainisi, the Allstate assistant general counsel in charge of the
program.
"We have never said that plaintiffs' lawyers don't bring valuable
services to their clients," says Mr. Vainisi from Allstate's corporate
headquarters in Northbrook, Ill. "But the key where we take issue
with attorney involvement...is when we get inflated demands and built-up
medicals...which impact on general damages. That inures to nobody's
benefits except the trial lawyers'."
The success of the CLE seminars is linked to Allstate's success,
Mr. Vainisi says. "The economic impact on these lawyers has been
fairly significant," he says. "The title, at least in our estimation,
is a tag line to get people to attend."
LePley & Greig P.L.C. name partner Patrick LePley, of Bellevue, Wash.,
came up with the name "How to Hammer Allstate" during one of those
gripe sessions about Allstate that a conversation inevitably turns
into when two or more auto tort lawyers meet these days. This chat,
between Mr. LePley, Fulton & Tuttle name partner Bradford J. Fulton
and several other auto tort litigators, veered toward "what are we
going to do about it," Mr. Fulton recalls.
Allstate has driven a number of lawyers in Washington state to refuse
minor impact cases because they cannot afford to spend $4,000 to
win $8,000, Mr. Fulton says.
"It works," Mr. Fulton says of Allstate's strategy. "But there is
a core group of us who think we have a duty to fight it."
"The leap was deciding to target a particular insurance company,"
says Karen Greig, Mr. LePley's partner. "But we felt the problem
in our state was so acute that we were justified."
SECRET SESSIONS The next step, Ms. Greig says, was to assure attendees
that Allstate would not learn the content of their seminars. So the
Washington association--and, consequently, those that have followed--went
to extraordinary lengths to keep these meetings secret. The seminar
was limited to voting members only, and Mr. Fulton says that he had
some friends who practice in Seattle screen the names of the applicants,
looking for defense counsel. Attendees signed nondisclosure agreements,
and the sessions were not videotaped.
(Mr. Vainisi says that Allstate has acquired some course materials.)
Mr. Fulton chairs a trial lawyer association task force that is investigating
Allstate's practices in Washington. He developed the course outline.
Topics were chosen based on his knowledge of how Allstate handles
cases in Washington.
Part of the course described the Allstate litigation policy, known
as MIST (minimal impact soft tissue), and the company's methodology
for determining settlements, which is called COLOSSUS after the computer
program that calculates the offers.
Then the sessions moved into specific strategies for handling discovery,
uninsured claims, negotiations and the actual trial. For instance,
one class was devoted to how to exclude and impeach Allstate's biomechanical
expert. In most cases, Allstate presents at trial an accident reconstruction
expert who opines on what happened during the wreck and calculates
the g-force impact on the plaintiff. The biomechanic then testifies
that the g-forces could not have possibly caused the injuries claimed
by the plaintiff.
The Washington state seminar was held on Feb. 18 and, with 340 lawyers,
was the highest-attended CLE seminar in the association's history.
Because of the response, the Washington trial lawyers set up another
seminar, this time in Spokane on April 22, that was attended by another
125 lawyers.
"The seminar was really a galvanizing event. It was the biggest seminar
put on, and the whole atmosphere was supercharged," says Ms. Greig,
who served as an instructor.
So many cases are not clear-cut, she says. The defendants, she found,
often were regular people who were just as sympathetic as her injured
clients were. All these shades of gray were not how she pictured
the practice of law during her school days. But she sees one villain
clearly.
"Allstate, without a doubt, wears a black hat," she says. "It's an
opportunity to fight a really bad, creepy presence. How often does
that happen?"
OUR COMMENTS: Let's hope this spreads to other states.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SMILING ANIMALS
Insurance companies have a proclivity for hiring lawyers with beguiling
smiles and attractive personalities. Walk into any courtroom and
you can immediately pick out the insurance company lawyer. He is
stately in his appearance, always immaculate and with a proper haircut.
He usually wears a white shirt and his tie complements his navy
blue pin-striped suit perfectly.
And he seems unimposing, quite humble, quite kind, quite gentle,
quite to-the-toenails right. People inevitably look to him and listen
to him, and because they tend to beleive nice people, he usually
wins.
An iniquitious dynamic occurs here. This paradoxical character with
the proficiency of the most pernicious pettifogger leads the jurors
to beleive that he is decent and kind, when in fact his only goal
is to deprive a desperately injured person of his chance at justice.
He reminded me of the Judas goat in the slaughterhouse. The goat
is a smarter animal than the sheep. In fealty to his master, the
Judas goat leads the sheep to the killing house. The sheep innocently
follow, having put their full faith and trust in the goat. Once
in the killing house, the goat is released to lead yet another flock
of sheep to slaughter. How could I reveal the insurance company's
treachery to the jury? How could I win?
Quoted from "How to Argue and Win Every Time" by Gerry Spence
OUR COMMENTS: Our "Allstate" lawyer was a woman, but also looked
very nice, and was so charming that Paula was convinced she was just
an honest, wonderful person, even though she had been pulling out
a succession of sneaky knives. I had my doubts ;') Another word for
someone who is Very slick and fools people, but has no conscience,
is a Sociopath.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
LOOKING FOR SUPPORT
From: John Gutierrez http://www.insurancejustice.com/ and find out why you're NOT
insured.
From kana@fcol.com Fri Nov 26 16:02:51 1999
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:40:06 -0500
From: The Insurer Crime Outline
To: bhammel@graham.main.nc.us
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
Please feel free to unsubscribe by replying to this letter with UNSUB in the
subject line. Or if friends want to subscribe, have them email
kana@fcol.com with SUB in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
FROM US TO INSURE.COM TO THE AP
(Darn, if only we could make this much trouble for Allstate)
By The Associated Press
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- A federal judge said Monday he plans to order an inquiry
into allegations by past and present employees of Prudential Insurance Co. of
America that the company shortchanged settlements to policyholders who were already
cheated by its sales practices.
The 44 workers, most from Minnesota, are among thousands around the country processing
claims by 650,000 policyholders under terms of a 1997 settlement under which
Prudential could pay up to $2.6 billion in compensation.
That task is to be completed in the next few months, and much of that sum has
already been paid.
The workers made the allegations in lawsuits filed in Minnesota charging Prudential
with racial and gender discrimination.
Prudential denies both sets of charges, and said it is eager for depositions
to test the validity of the workers' claims.
U.S. District Judge Alfred W. Wolin, who is overseeing the national settlement,
appeared ready Monday to have depositions of the workers taken by lawyers for
policyholders and Prudential.
But he agreed to wait until midweek before crafting a final order after a lawyer
for the suing workers, Fred L. Neff, objected to Prudential playing a role, saying
that would be a conflict of interest.
The workers are handling claims from a huge class-action settlement in which
Newark-based Prudential, the nation's largest insurer, admitted that its sale
practices cheated people who bought policies from 1982-95.
They charged that Prudential managers trained them to deny policyholders the
highest score, a 3, which would bring the most compensation. Policyholders are
graded on the basis of how badly they were cheated.
The current and former workers also said managers at the grading center in Plymouth,
Minn., held contests to see how quickly claims could be scored, and suspended
quality reviews during certain weeks.
A Prudential spokesman, Robert DeFillippo, said, ``Our review found no evidence
to substantiate these allegations. We believe they are groundless.''
He noted that claims that get less than a 3 are sent to policyholders' lawyers
for review, and that customers can appeal their score, at Prudential's expense.
In addition to the class-action compensation, Prudential paid about $70 million
in penalties to the 50 states and Washington, D.C.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE
Now that they are pulling the same trick on agents that won them a class action
in CA, Allstate is having agents sign a release that includes their forgoing
the right to join in a class action nationwide. Great idea -- I am sure other
criminals woud love to do this -- have the laws rescinded and the victim sign
away his rights, right before you mug him.
There is a $5000 conversion bonus for employee agents or there is a termination
payment for those not converting if they are willing to sign a release of liability.
Basically, you have to sign if you want to keep your job, or walk away from
getting "released" with anything more than a kick in the ass. And if you quit,
you'll probably have a hard time with COBRA, other termination payments, a good
reference, etc. I'm sure they have all the threats very clear.
Hey, 5,000 bucks to give up your rights to sue for a million after they destroy
a career you spent twenty years building up. Who wouldn't jump at that? Real
no-brainer.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>From various peculiar events, including the denial of service by Mindspring,
we have had a general sort of feeling that ALL lawyers may be hacking into our
computers for awhile. Oddly enough, here is a case where lawyers Did hack into
a computer via the net and got caught.
=========================================================
Cybersleuths Accuse Law Firm of Hacking
Internet Dust Up Spurred By Domain Name Fight Nov. 15, 1999
By David Noack
WASHINGTON (APBnews.com) -- In a case of cyberintrigue that is unusual even by
Internet standards, a company that does private investigative work has filed
a $10 million lawsuit against a top law firm, accusing it of trying to hack into
the firm's computers at least 750 times.
Moore Publishing Inc., which runs the information service Dig Dirt Inc., alleges
that four employees at Steptoe & Johnson LLP attempted to hack into the its computers,
as well as those of CIBIR Corporation, an Internet service provider that hosts
the company's Web pages.
This is believed to be the first time that a law firm has been accused of attempting
to hack into another computer.
Alleges stolen password and account
In an amended lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
last week, Moore Publishing said that it was expanding its initial computer hacking
case against Steptoe & Johnson.
The allegations contend that Steptoe & Johnson "conspired to repeatedly hack
into certain Internet domains, as well as ... Internet sites owned by the company."
The complaint also alleges that a Steptoe employee stole an Internet password
and account from his former computer customer, Lois Gloor, and that messages
were posted in Usenet Newsgroups that were highly critical of Moore Publishing.
Steptoe lawyers have already filed for summary judgment, and a hearing is slated
for Nov. 23. Federal Judge Thomas Penfield, who will hear the case, is also hearing
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
'Cybersquatting' at heart of case
The flurry of legal action comes after a "cybersquatting" dispute involving a
domain name that Moore Publishing registered called steptoeandjohnson.com. Steptoe
& Johnson wanted Moore to give up the name, but initial talks to resolve the
issue were unsuccessful. Cybersquatting is where someone registers a domain name
that is the same or similar to a company's business name and then tries to sell
that name back to the company at a hefty price.
Rodney R. Sweetland III, who is representing Moore Publishing, declined to speculate
on the motives of the Steptoe & Johnson employees who allegedly carried out the
hacking incidents. Moore Publishing is based in Wilmington, Del. They also have
an office in Washington.
The three Steptoe & Johnson employees named in the amended complaint are James
Cramer, Thomas Felt and Myra Burch. A fourth employee is identified as Jane Doe.
Did management know?
A spokeswoman for Steptoe denied the charges.
"Unlike Moore Publishing Inc. and its counsel," she said, "Steptoe & Johnson
will not litigate this case in the media. We will respond in the court where
these matters are properly addressed."
The complaint against the law firm accuses the four employees of attempting to
gain access since August to Dig Dirt's computers, and then its hosting company's
computers.
The legal papers do not say what role, if any, Steptoe management officials had
in these computer-hacking incidents, whether they condoned or were aware of the
actions of the three employees.
The charges in the complaint range from computer hacking and defamation to civil
conspiracy.
'Defamatory and false statements'
"I could not possibly speculate as to what their motives were," said Sweetland,
who also represents Joseph. C. Seanor III. "Certainly we have a situation based
upon the sheer number of incidents that there was malice involved and the fact
that Mr. Felts posted defamatory and false statements about not only my client
but the president of the company that owned his server."
He said that if the law firm wanted to settle the domain name dispute, they could
have contacted Network Solutions Inc., the firm that registers domain names.
They have set up a domain name resolution process.
"They don't have a right to crack into a system, and they don't have a right
to a denial of service attack, and they certainly don't have cause to go out
there and accuse him of being a computer criminal. To use those kinds of methods,
it certainly turned what could be a legitimate business dispute into a federal
crime," said Sweetland.
Congress looks into domain registering
In October, the House of Representatives approved a bill to discourage cybersquatting.
The measure would set civil liability of up to $100,000 for people who in bad
faith register "domain names" that are "identical or confusingly similar" to
an existing trademark.
The bill would also protect companies that register Internet names from legal
liability when they cancel a cybersquatter's registration.
Dig Dirt Inc. does investigative and research work for law firms, corporation
and federal law enforcement.
Steptoe & Johnson has offices in Washington, Phoenix and Los Angeles and, through
Steptoe & Johnson International, offices in Moscow. The firm has more than 290
lawyers.
David Noack is an APBnews.com staff writer (david.noack@apbnews.com).
=========================================================
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL
Some very big news is coming and I just wanted you-all to know we have our ear
to the ground. Allstate may indeed bite the dust and is about to get blindsided
from a Number of different directions. They've just hurt and pissed off too
many people -- more than Any other insurer they are known for playing Ultimate
Harball and the Hardball is coming right back at them.
More later.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
FROM THE ALL STOCK BBS ON YAHOO
The Plot Thickens. Allstate has just announced contract changes and mandated
agreements for their agents which -- well -- stink. This company Tries to do
the wrong thing. Imagine alienating the people who not only sell the product
but who can carry the customers off with them. I think their stock is going
to 10, not 20 as I previously thought. The company seems to have a suicidal
streak, or more likely are so confirmed in their arrogance that they think they
can do Anything. Here are a few interesting posts.
=====================================
To investors reading this thread: if you really want to know the direction of
this company and whether or not to buy in, read stocksmybag post. Once you read
that, read this: covenants not to compete mean NOTHING. Especially when the company
is changing all the guidelines and your change of employment is due to their
coercion (vs you leaving on your own). In other words, investors, agents have
seen that there is more loyalty to an agent than to a "Brand Name" (we are not
selling tools and Jaclyn Smith underwear here- although Ed doesn't seem to know
that). The smart ones and good ones will use the formula espoused by stocksmybag
and you will see massive rollover of books of business. To all All agents: read
the latest "agreement that was handed out: all wants you to give up your rights
as a citizen of the USA on the first page. They want you to give up your right
to sue Allstate at the same time that they want to sew up your pension and rip
apart your employee status. DON'T SIGN ANYTHING WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY.
Anyone who thinks the latest news is good news had better read all the fine print
and check into the status of the "opt-outs" suit in California. As for buy outs....who
the hell would buy this bag of worms? I already have four options and requests
from IAs for partnership employment (Oh yes, none of them are open on weekends
or the day after Tday). Things are looking up after all. =======================================
Stock price.. by: stocksmybag 11/18/1999 1:50 am EST Msg: 6887 of 6891
Early in 1998 then CEO Jerry Choate made a statement to the shareholders promising
double digit growth in ALL and he had the numbers behind him to back him up.
What happened to skew the number for 1997's growth was they resolved the earthquake
issue in CA which resulted in massive growth for the company based on the influx
of $$ from the Golden State due to those no-good agents y'all talk about. The
growth leveled out as the initial spike in new business flattened to the normal
growth rate of around 4%-6%. Still VERY good for a mature company, but not good
enough to satisfy the shareholder who were PROMISED a double-digit growth rate.
ALL then imposed mandatory growth goals on the agents which were tracked by Sr
management. Those that didn't achive those goals were hounded and harrased by
AM's. Despite best efforts and WITHOUT a competitve rate in major markets, the
plan didn't work. Next step was to go after the IA market by giving out as many
IA appointments as it could, even if it meant cutting the ALL agents throat next
door and despite Sr. Managements promise of "NEVER" doing anything to harm the
agents. Next step was to buy other companies to achive "multi-channel" avenue
of distributing policies and give the appearance of forward thinking without
adding real value to the company. Last but not least, FIRE all the agents, cut
6%-8% off your expense ratio and add that savings to your P/E ratio in the stroke
of a pen and trumpet the internet & 800 as your savior
OUR COMMENTS: And as the report from our insider mentioned, their "Internet Strategy"
is a total sham anyway.
=========================================
Straw=benefits Bricks=Policies by: servant_2000_1999 11/18/1999 7:52 am EST Msg:
6889 of 6891
And the taskmasters of the people and their officers went out and spoke to the
people, "Thus says Pharaoh: ' I will not give you straw." 'Go, get yourselves
straw where you can find it; yet none of your work will be reduced.'" So the
people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble
instead of straw. And the taskmasters forced them to hurry, saying, "Fulfill
your work, your daily quota, as when there was straw." Also the officers of the
children of Israel, whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten
and were asked, " Why have you not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday
and today, as before?" Then the officers of the children of the children of Israel
came and cried out to Pharaoh, saying, "Why are you dealing thus with your servants?
There is no straw given to your servants, and they say to us, 'Make brick!' And
indeed your servants are beaten, but the fault is in your own people.
=========================================
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MINDSPRING CRAP CONTINUED
After denying us service for weeks, so we couldn't see our own website, then
blaming it on our server, who said there was no block, Mindspring couldn't be
bothered to track down our problem, which they could have by simply contacting
our server to work it out between them -- so we quit them, and they cancelled
on the 10th. Even that they made hard. There is no way to quit on their site.
You have to contact a tech rep for an 800 number, and tell them a secret number
(NOT your password, which you would know) which they gave you years ago when
you signed up. Of course I had lost it and had to jump through hoops to cancel;
no doubt this is to discourage people from signing off.
Then, after all this baloney, they just sent me a Bill in the mail for another
full month of the service I didn't get.
Someone warned me that Mindspring top mgmt got the same morally bankrupt "management
by statistics" training from L. Ron Hubbard that Allstate management did, but
I didn't pay too much attention to it. Now I'm beginning to think there is something
to it. I can sense the same screw-the-customer and play-tricks attitude.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
WHAT WE SAID
We've been saying for years that "stock options" are destroying the corporate
system, making managers too greedy and short-term in their thinking, and too
apt to play dirty little games with the stock to make millions, no matter What
it costs the company. The NYSE finally agrees.
================================================
NYSE threatens boards' power over stock options
Heads up, directors! Your ability to award options is at risk. The New York Stock
Exchange is jumping into the anti-option camp. The Big Board is making it easier
for shareholders to veto option plans.
The NYSE will announce important new regulations this summer. The new rules will
require shareholder approval if option plans are too dilutive. And the rules
may also give shareholders a power they've never before wielded: the right to
vote on option plans funded out of treasury stock.
Companies can issue options in one of two ways. They can create new shares to
hand over to executives who exercise options. Or they can use existing shares
from the corporate treasury.
Either way, handing over shares dilutes the value of the stock held by investors.
Each shareholder ends up with a smaller piece of the company-and its dividends-than
he had before. That's why investors want the power to veto option plans.
Some investors believe options funded out of treasury stock do not dilute shareholder
wealth. But this perception is wrong, says David Yermack. Yermack has been retained
as a consultant to the NYSE task force. He argues that treasury stock isn't free.
Companies use shareholder assets-like cash-to acquire treasury stock, Yermack
points out. That means a transfer of assets from shareholders to the executives
receiving options. "Either way it costs investors exactly the same," Yermack
asserts.
Task force members aren't sure the rules over treasury stock will go through.
Insiders cite "concerns over the stock exchange's jurisdiction." Unlike newly
issued shares, treasury stock is usually outside the NYSE's purview.
But rules introducing a dilution-based standard for shareholder votes on option
plans are a given. The task force hopes to have them in place for next year's
proxy season, says John Olson. Olson chairs the task force that' s developing
the new regulations. He's also a senior partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
Olson says the new rules may completely replace the existing ones. Current NYSE
regulations require shareholder votes on option plans which are not "broadly
based." When only a few top executives receive options, shareholders have a chance
to veto the plan. But institutional investors say the NYSE's definition of broadly
based is too generous to companies.
Experts worry the exchange will come out with dogmatic, across-the-board dilution
thresholds. "Dilution varies by industry and size of firm," observes Dave Bisson,
a senior compensation consultant at WestWard Pay Strategies. Olson expects the
dilution figure that will trigger shareholder votes to fall "in the lower range."
He says having different standards apply to various industries isn't a practical
solution for the stock exchange. That means the NYSE will rely on the lowest
common denominator.
And Olson says that's not a bad thing. Most plans submitted to shareholder votes
are approved, he says. "Institutional investors will accept option plans if they're
below certain thresholds," he insists.
The rules, after SEC approval, will apply only to NYSE-listed companies. But
task force members hope they become universal. "We would like what we do to apply
broadly to corporate America," remarks Peter Clapman. Clapman is a member of
the NYSE task force and chief invesment counsel of TIAA-CREF.
NYSE officials fear the tougher rules will give the NASD a competitive advantage.
The NASD currently has broad shareholder-vote exemptions for option plans. That
can be attractive to public companies. Any company that doesn't want a shareholder
vote can request an exemption.
A NASDAQ spokesperson says the agency has no plans to copy the new NYSE rule.
"The markets have always had different requirements," he smiles. "That 's part
of the very fabric of the exchanges."
Directors will have a chance to voice their opinions on the new rules. After
the NYSE task force finishes its work, the rules will go to the SEC for approval.
The SEC will have at least a 30-day public comment period.
================================================
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted. Mail
to: Cyber Vigilante, PO Box 1613, Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com and find out why you're NOT insured.
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted.
Mail to: Cyber Vigilante, PO Box 1613, Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com and find out why you're NOT insured.
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Sun Oct 31 10:52:34 1999
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:46:54 -0500
From: Cyber Vigilante Website
Reply-To: Cyber Vigilante Website
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories: Don'[t Let Them Slapp You Down; A Win; McCain
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DON'T LET THEM SLAPP YOU DOWN
Since many of our friends are trying to expose the corruption in the
insurance industry, and crooked corporations often try to silence our First
Amendment rights throught a tort back door, many states have passed
anti-SLAPP suits against these hijinks. (For those of you who don't know,
SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- in
other words, Shut 'em Up.)
Here are some citations and references on SLAPP from our friend Georgiana
Sibberson: Mostly regarding California, but many other states, except the
regressive and corrupt ones, have such laws on their books, and Netizens
should learn about them. Silencing cheated consumers and stealing their
First Amendment right to speak out, through the back door of tort law, or
the threat of ruinous litigation, is plain wrong. So many people are silent
after their lives are destroyed by some giant corporation because they fear
deep pockets and the thousands of lawyers these companies have. We hope all
states soon have SLAPP laws, and that the federal government follows suit.
==================================
Here's a good place to start learning about the difference between freedom
of speech and libel.
http://www.fredomforum.org
Interesting tidbit about unsealing State Farm settlement records. Also an
idea about litigants linking up with consumer advocacy groups,
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/10/29orstatefarm.asp
And another article about judges having discretion about what clothing
litigants may wear at trials. For your friend.
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/1999/10/28tshirt.asp
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/95/nw0910-5.htm
FROM BARBARA WARTELLE WALL: LEGAL WATCH CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE HELPS
S.F. CHRONICLE FIGHT LIBEL SUIT
A California Appeals Court has ruled that members of the media are protected
by a California statute designed to deter and punish litigants who bring
defamation actions to chill speech. Under the law, which enabled the San
Francisco Chronicle to win early dismissal of a libel suit, the plaintiff
could be forced to pay the newspaper's attorney's fees. (Lafayette
Morehouse, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publishing Co., August 9, 1995).
The case arose after the Chronicle published several articles describing a
controversy involving a local university that describes itself as a
"sensuality school" and offers a Ph.D. in the field. The reports, labeling
the school an "academy of carnal knowledge," focused on public hearings and
lawsuits over the school's alleged violation of zoning laws by allowing a
tent city for the homeless on its property.
When the university instituted a libel action, the Chronicle moved to strike
down the suit under a 1992 law aimed at curbing so-called "SLAPP" suits --
legal actions aimed at quelling speech on controversial issues. Under the
anti-SLAPP law, a libel defendant can bring a special dismissal motion early
in proceedings if the allegedly libelous statement deals with an issue of
public importance. If the plaintiff is unable at that point to demonstrate
at least a reasonable probability of success at trial, the court can throw
out the case.
The judge in the Chronicle suit did just that, ruling that the university
had failed to show, among other things, that it had a realistic chance of
making its case on the issue of falsity.
On appeal, the university argued that the law was intended only to cover
defendants like private citizens and grassroots political advocacy groups
that are especially vulnerable to the chilling effect of costly litigation.
Wealthy media companies, they argued, can protect themselves without help
from the legislature.
The appellate court rejected the school's argument, noting that the
statute's plain language made it applicable to any suit arising from a
defendant's act "in furtherance of [its] right of . . . free speech under
the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue."
The reviewing court also agreed that the university failed to demonstrate a
reasonable probability of success. For instance, the court found that the
university probably could not prove falsity with respect to the Chronicle's
statement that the school offered "a unique course in carnal knowledge." A
catalogue showed that the university offered a class entitled "Mutual
Pleasurable Stimulation of the Human Nervous System" with recommended course
materials including "small hand towels, and lubricant, plus latex gloves."
Under the SLAPP statute's attorney's fee recovery provision, the trial court
had ordered the university to pay the Chronicle more than $64,000. That
portion of the order is being appealed separately.
According to news reports, at least six anti-SLAPP cases involving media
defendants currently are being litigated in California.
=============================================
http://www.syix.com/emu/html/terminix_loses_anti-slapp.html
On March 29, 1998, my attorney filed the papers for a "Notice of Special
Motion and Special Motion to Strike a Complaint as a SLAPP (Strategic
Litigation Against Public Participation) Suit." I'll bet Terminix was REALLY
upset about this one since California may be the only state that has
anti-SLAPP legislation. The California Anti-SLAPP Foundation offers links to
the following information:
Florida takes up anti-SLAPP bill
Indiana Senate passes anti-SLAPP bill
Maryland legislators' third try for anti-SLAPP bill
New Jersey legislators try again for anti-SLAPP bill
The anti-SLAPP hearing was held April 20, 1998, and the judge stated he
would issue his ruling sometime that week. It was a very long week.
On April 28, 1998, I received the judge's ruling on our anti-SLAPP motion. I
won!!! The judge's Ruling on Special Motion to Strike states in part:
Virga claims her conduct in publishing the web page was in furtherance of
her constitutional right of free speech in that the published web page was
made in a public form in connection with an issue of public interest or
furtherance of her exercise of her first amendment rights in connection with
a public issue or an issue of public interest.
The court agrees. The Internet is a place open to the public and/or is a
public forum and enjoys full first amendment protection. The dispute with
Terminix is a consumer issue and is of public interest.
Terminix has not shown a probability of prevailing at trial.... The motion
by Virga is granted.
WOW!!! Terminix actually failed in their attempt to abrogate my first
amendment rights, and their defamation suit against me was thrown out!!!
Terminix did not file an appeal. The facts did not change; and since they
are a multi-BILLION dollar company, it certainly wasn't for lack of money!
With the anti-SLAPP victory, I was granted attorney fees; however, the only
recoverable fees are the attorney fees for the anti-SLAPP motion. Here's a
kicker. A hearing was automatically scheduled for Terminix to oppose the
amount of the attorney fees. They did not appear. My attorney did appear;
and, naturally, he charged for his time in court. Now, it seems to me that
at these "automatic" hearings, the losing party should appear and either
oppose the amount or pay the judgment. No, that's too simple and not how it
's done. My attorney must now file papers (at a fee, of course) to seek
fulfillment of the judgment.
When I was notified of the ex parte motion filed by Terminix, I contacted
the California Anti-SLAPP Foundation for assistance. Among the advice I was
given was to check my homeowner's policy for coverage. With only three days
' notice, I was more concerned with finding an attorney to represent me. BIG
mistake! Had I followed the advice I was given, I would have saved thousands
of dollars! I have learned that yes, I was covered; however, insurance
companies fight to avoid paying pre-tender fees. They will only pay fees
incurred from the date the claim was filed. By the time I realized I could
file a claim, this case was basically over.
In August, I received the court-ordered judgment check from Terminix for the
anti-SLAPP attorney fees. When I picked up the check from my attorney's
office, he told me his father had a little problem with Terminix. He (the
father) had told Terminix that before they came to his house, they needed to
let him know so he could lock up his dog. He received a bill for services
rendered and called Terminix. He told them that there was no way Terminix
could have gone in his back yard to perform the services since no one had
called him to lock up his Rotweiller, and the dog would have attacked anyone
who entered the back yard. The manager called him back and told him the
technician had been unable to perform the services because there was a large
dog in the back yard. Duh! Now, the question I have is, how many people
have a large dog so they can know whether or not the services they are
billed for were actually done?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A WIN
OUR COMMENTS: Allstate almost Never settles once you've been Yellow-Sheeted.
We're happy for Kelly. Must have prayed a lot ;') Now, if the Lord only
help those tens of thousands of other victims.
=====================================
Dear Jim and Paula, Lo and behold Allstate finally settled my claim the
first of September. They still screwed me out of 105 days of interest which
had accrued,buy hey it only took me ten months and a few thousand dollars in
attorney costs that I cannot recover to accomplish this amazing feat. I have
spent the last two months trying to retain an attorney to file either a bad
faith suit or an unfair claims settlement practices suit,this has been to no
avail every attorney I have spoken with has told me that since I accepted
their settlement I cannot sue.
Even though they purposefully and intentionally delayed paying my claim and
making my familys life a living hell for the better part of a year.By the
time the contractor is done working it will be more than a year.He says he
can have us back in the house by Christmas(merry frigging Xmas hey). I
dropped my auto policies as quickly as possible,but I have to keep my
homeowners for another year,no one else will write us a policy for at least
two years after the loss. All I can do is pray to god nothing happens to us,
because if it does we are screwed. I look for Allshaft to cancel when our
policy comes due again. For anyone who questions the validity of this
www.insurancejustice.com, allstateinsurancesucks.com and all other websites related
to Allstates tactics I can personally bear witness to the fact these sites
do project the truth.
To the Allstaters who question this sites validity to hell with you
sniveling little suck up yes men and women or whatever the case may be
anyway. Have you also noticed most of the ones who reply from Allsuck make a
very concerted effort to remain anonymous. This after Liddy questioned your
site validity due to anonymity. I dont believe they half know what the hell
they are saying when it comes out of their mouth. Oh well Im beginning to
ramble. Ive got my Allstate t-shirts and am waiting on the bunper stickers.
I will tell anyone who is wise enough to listen. If you know any attorneys
not afraid of these sons a bithches in my circuit pleases let me know I
could use the assistance. Best Wishes
Kelly Dickenson blitzkrieg10@hotmail
=====================================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MCCAIN
Since the agents wrote McCain about State Farm, we wrote him about Allstate.
He's an upright man, and has been trashed by the corrupt leader of his own
party (R) for daring to speak out in favor of campaign finance reform. It
would be nice if Someone had the guts to buck the mighty insurance industry
instead of sucking up to them as the House and Senate Majority Leaders do.
McCain also does a yearly listing of "pork barrel" bills passed by his
fellow congressmen, which does not endear him to them. We like this guy,
and it has nothing to do with his party.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted.
Mail to: Cyber Vigilante, PO Box 1613, Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com and find out why you're NOT insured.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Sun Oct 31 10:52:49 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:08:30 -0400
From: Cyber Vigilante Website
Reply-To: Cyber Vigilante Website
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories: The Rape of the Osbornes; Oh, What Brave New World;
International Criminal Enterprises; Strategy and Tactics; Through the
Cracks; More on CFS; Resuscitated by Congress; Can Your HMO Kill You?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE RAPE OF THE OSBORNES
To whom it may concern: I just wanted to let people know about my experience
with Allstate Insurance Company Most of my life I have been a firm believer
in insurance coverage for home, auto, health and life I've always believed
that you pay your premiums your covered for anything that happens like I
said I always believed until I was covered by Allstate insurance I wasn't
covered I just had someone to pay premiums to god forbid filling a claim.
With that said in the year of 1998 I was approached by a Allstate agent
wanting me to allow them to quote me on all of the insurances that I had so
I said ok it turns out Allstate was cheaper than the insurance that I had
currently so I told them when my polices ran out I would change over to
Allstate in march 99 my automobiles came up for renewal I change over to
Allstate also I told them my renters policy would not be up for renewal
until august and they could have that also so august came and I changed over
to Allstate on my renters policy.
With that said in august I had to take my wife to Kentucky for a doctors
appointment before I left I had put my children's Christmas gifts in our
basement and covered them up I didn't put them in the house because I didn't
want the kids to find them any how I was only going to be gone for one day
my house is normally occupied no one has ever bothered anything we get to
Kentucky the doctor told use my wife has to have emergency surgery we end up
staying a 2 weeks she gets threw the surgery okay we come home a few days
later I find all my tools are gone all of the kids Christmas gifts are gone
(computer systems) it makes me sick I feel so violated I've been stolen from
my children have been stolen from what do I do now then I remember I am
covered (SO I THOUGHT) I call the police and my agent a few days later an
adjuster calls tells me to provide information they need and sign some
papers that will arrive in the mail so I make a list of my tools and get
together my receipts and fax them to the adjuster as per her instructions
the paper work comes in the mail as she said I have no clue how to feel them
out . a couple of days later another adjuster calls said he was taking over
my case now the fun really begins I start jumping through hoops for a
company I pay to protect me.
I have been ask so many personal questions my life has been so pried into I
have given a sworn statement under oath about my whole life my divorces my
ex-wife stocks, bonds, bank accounts my finances how much money I have on my
person I understand insurance putting people through some things but this
experience has went to far. I felt violated when I was broken into but I
could not express enough how violated this insurance company has made me
feel it even exceeds the actual theft. But remember (you're not in good
hands with Allstate) I have Allstate insurance on my cars and my life I do
not feel secure at all I am afraid to even drive my vehicles in fear of an
accident because I feel I have no coverage just installments.
Sincerely. Danny Osborne Data8104@icx.net
OUR COMMENTS: This is only the beginning. It's an obvious prelude to denying
the claim and accusing the Obsornes of fraud or of robbing themselves. This
company is pure scum.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
OH, WHAT BRAVE NEW WORLD..
http://www.cleveland.com/news/pdnews/metro/l25box.ssf
Are you a better driver? insurer's device proves it
Monday, October 25, 1999
By JOHN MANGELS PLAIN DEALER SCIENCE WRITER
You're anonymous in your car. Tucked inside that metal and tinted-glass
cocoon, you're able to roam where you want to. If you avoid traffic tickets
and don't answer the cell phone, you can pretty much drive as you please.
Nobody knows what you're doing or where you are.
Right?
Not if Progressive Insurance follows through on its proposal for a vehicle
monitoring system.
As a way to offer potentially cheaper car insurance, the Mayfield-based
insurance giant has patented a plan for using onboard sensors to track a
policyholder's every move behind the wheel and send a regular report to its
computers for analysis. How fast they drive. Where they go. What route they
take. Whether they use seat belts, or signal before turning, or tailgate, or
stop so sharply that the anti-lock brakes kick in. Even what radio station
they listen to.
Progressive, the nation's fifth-largest auto insurer and an innovator
watched by the rest of the industry, says the Autograph system it is
evaluating in Texas is a fairer way than the traditional group rating to
bill customers based on how they drive. However, company officials say the
automotive "black box" they have so far placed in several hundred cars of
new and existing customers solicited by mailings is much less sophisticated
than what their patent describes, only tracking how long the vehicle is
driven each day and how much time it spends in congested and accident-prone
"risk zones."
They say that despite the patent's detailed description, there are no
current plans to do more extensive monitoring, or to furnish information
about individuals' driving habits to marketers. "It describes something
we're not currently doing, nor do we contemplate doing," said Maria
Henderson, general manager of the Autograph system.
Despite Progressive's assurances, privacy experts are concerned about the
potential of the system outlined in the patent, particularly the opportunity
it could create for police, marketers and others to get access to detailed
driving records.
"Oh my God. I'm just dumbfounded," said Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy
Times, a Washington-based newsletter on privacy issues for attorneys and
businesses. "I've never seen anything this detailed. It seems to me you
agree to be monitored in exchange for cheaper insurance. It's a Faustian
bargain."
"My guess is, if this hits the market, there'll be a brouhaha," said Mary
Culnan, a Georgetown University business professor specializing in privacy
and electronic marketing issues. "This is basically a surveillance system.
It's pretty amazing."
Automakers already put limited vehicle monitoring equipment in some cars,
but Progressive's system is a quantum leap in terms of the information it
proposes to gather, store and report.
Autograph is an improvement on the way a customer's car insurance bill
traditionally has been tallied, Progressive says. That method uses things
like a car's age and model, the driver's age, sex, residence and driving
record, and the insurer's experience on paying claims to that "class" of
driver and vehicle, to determine how much the customer must pay.
Autograph measures actual usage, so bills can be based mostly on that, and
not on historical estimates of the driver's risk, the company says. People
who drive less would pay less.
The Autograph patent describes a system in which an onboard computer and
sensors could collect a stream of driving data. The computer would determine
such things as whether the driver is breaking the speed limit on a certain
street, or driving in an area or at a time when accidents are likely. The
information would be stored in a digitized "driving file."
The car's computer would report certain "trigger events" to a central
computer via a cell phone link. Those would include things that require
immediate attention, such as a wreck or breakdown, and things that would add
to the driver's insurance bill, such as speeding, not using seat belts or
turn signals, or regularly braking so hard that the anti-lock system
activates. According to the patent, Progressive's computers would use the
trigger events and information in the driving file to calculate a monthly
insurance bill.
"We threw in the kitchen sink in the patent," as a protection against
competition, said Bob McMillan, Progressive's consumer marketing process
leader. "The [actual- product is using very little of that. Much of it won't
see the light of day."
Since insurance regulations vary from state to state, Progressive would face
differing standards in trying to bring Autograph into widespread use. The
system has been in test marketing since August 1998 in Houston, and the test
recently was expanded statewide. Progressive is classified as a "county
mutual" in the Lone Star state, which means its auto insurance rates aren't
subject to state regulation. In Ohio, Progressive would need Ohio Department
of Insurance approval to use Autograph in setting rates, a spokesman said.
How soon Progressive will offer Autograph nationwide depends on the time it
takes to make sure the system works properly, and to gather enough
information to satisfy insurance regulators, officials said.
In Houston, reaction among users "has been very positive," McMillan said.
The customers, who pay an installation cost the company won't disclose, plus
$1 per month for one car and $15 per month for each additional car, like the
control they get over their insurance bill, he said. Some have changed their
driving habits to lower costs. Savings average 25 percent of customers'
previous insurance coverage, McMillan said.
Customers sign a contract that discloses what Autograph will monitor,
Progressive officials said. "The privacy issue is there," McMillan said.
"But it really disappears as they understand the product."
Even so, privacy concerns will be a substantial hurdle for the company to
clear, experts said - especially when the issue involves the car, the
epitome of American freedom and a refuge from the world.
The specific concerns privacy experts say the Autograph concept raises are:
- That the driving information it collects could be used in a criminal or
civil case against the driver. Progressive officials said the company would
"take every step to protect our customers' privacy."
- That the data might be wrong, or wrongly interpreted. "People take as an
assumption that machines are infallible," said Mulligan. Contesting the
computer record could be difficult, she and others said.
- That the system could be a basis for discrimination against certain
people. "Drivers who do not wish to have their privacy invaded will be
classified as bad risks. People who really are bad risks will not want to
use the devices, and so people who want to preserve their privacy will be
lumped together with them," said Phil Agre, a professor in the University of
California, Los Angeles' department of information studies.
Progressive will not require that customers use Autograph as a condition of
getting car insurance, company officials said.
- That the information could be used by outside parties, especially
advertisers. McMillan said Progressive has no "current use" for such
information, and would ask customers' permission if the company ever
considered releasing information to advertisers.
Insurance industry analysts say that if anyone can make such a potentially
risky product as Autograph a success, it's Progressive.
"They're usually one step ahead of the pack," said Jay Cohen, first vice
president of Merrill Lynch & Co., the New York investment firm. "This type
of product is ideal for an insurance company if you can get around the
privacy issue. It's not a surprise that Progressive is trying it first."
Other insurers might be reluctant, though, to abandon the time and expense
invested in traditional methods of rating drivers' risks. "They may be more
comfortable with the devil they know," said Jim Jones of the Insurance
Institute of America.
Car makers also might prove to be a difficult sell. Progressive is
installing Autograph now, but CEO Peter Lewis said recently that his company
was "trying to get auto companies to put the right black box in" as factory
equipment.
"I can't imagine that happening," said Phil Haseltine, president of the
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, whose members include most of the
domestic and foreign automakers. "I don't think the public would stand for
it."
E-mail: jmangels@plaind.com Phone: (216) 999-4842
OUR COMMENTS: This is Horrible. And stupid consumers will fall for it to
save a few bucks. What they don't realize is All insurers will start doing
stuff like this, then it will spread to industry and employers, who could
save money by monitoring, too. It may never become "mandatory" but it may
become "voluntary" like United Way is in big corporations. You know you are
Expected to give a certain percentage "voluntary" donation to them, to make
them look good. I always hated that. I had my Own charity at the time,
Christian Children's Fund, and I didn't want to give to United Way, which is
somewhat corrupt and gives money to organizations that don't strike me as
charities
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES
45 Percent Rise in Complaints Against Insurance Companies 10/21/99
MEXICO CITY, Oct. 21 (El Universal/Infolatina)-- As it is Mexico is not a
heavy user of insurance services, since few people consider the necessity of
insuring themselves or their property. But to make matters worse complaints
of irregularities made against insurance companies rose 45 percent in the
first half of the year. The major part of complaints involve fraud or
negligence of insurance agents. People who dealt with such agents more
frequently are finding that they were never insured.
OUR COMMENTS: Well, we knew about China and Germany, but apparenlty Allstate
has a Mexican subsidiary ;') Geez, I feel for those people in Mexico, which
is know for its corruption. If American DOIs are inactive or corrupt, and
don't really help citizens, imagine trying to get help south of the border.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
STRATEGY AND TACTICS
Excellent advice from an attorney on how to battle insurance companies:
http://www.insuranceattorney.com/claim.htm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THROUGH THE CRACKS
COMMENTS: The letter below is yet another case where the insurer stalls, the
DOI won't help, and the claim (value of an old truck) is too small to hire a
lawyer. Insurers know most folks can't do anything in these "smaller" cases
(which are big to them) and so they get away with murder. The system
stinks.) Hi checked out your site its great I have a problem with a
insurance co called Gallant they also use the name Worrier, Valor and Insure
one
==============================
Do you know any place I can go for help
Here is what happened short version
a co worker was using my truck she got hit by a guy that ran a light Gallant
paid her since she was the driver it don't matter who owns the truck My name
is on the police report as owner plates in my name but they still paid her I
never knew they paid her the accident happened in Dec of 96 she was paid
sometime in 97
I could not get a copy of the report from the Gary police Dept had to get it
from the state when I did I sent a letter to the guy that hit the truck his
sister called me and told me she would check with the insurance co and get
back to me 3-4 weeks latter I send him a second letter she calls again and
tells me that the insurance co said they would call me and talk to me they
never did so I called them they told me it was paid to the driver this is
what they do it don't matter who owns the truck case closed
Since this co in based in IL I sent a letter to the Dept of Insurance they
said looks like the insurance co screwed up get a lawyer
I sent a letter to Indiana dept. of Insurance said get a lawyer and go after
the person that got the money
Why should I have to pay for a lawyer they are the ones that screwed up at
that time the estimate was for like 1032.00?
but I am sure its more now I can not afford a lawyer the girl I used to work
with that was using my truck said the insurance co sent the check to her its
hers talk to her lawyer
I can not drive the truck it its been sitting in my garage since 97
can you help
Mark Barber
Mark.Barber@ucm.com
FURTHER COMMENTS: It's frustrating. Giant departments of insurance that
suck up billions in tax money don't help Anyone, so they have to ask a tiny
website, whose webmasters have yet to win their won claim. Sheesh. They
should just close down the DOIs. They're totally worthless. All they'll do
is say, "Get a lawyer." I really don't know What their function is.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MORE ON CFS
CNN did a good job on the CFS update last night. I think this spot may have
been done by the same people that I talked to over a year and a half ago.
They told me they were looking into a story on CFS, but after a few
discussions they weren't interested in the insurance problems we're having.
But I think it still took them a year and a half just to get this story
aired on CFS. I'm told that the head of the CDC Dr. Koplan worked for
Prudential Insurance Company for quite a few years before becoming head of
the CDC.
Judydoc
OUR COMMENTS: Christ, the head of the organization charged with guarding our
health worked for one of the nation's most corrupt life insurers (still
cheating on their "churning" judgment.) These guys have a dirty finger in
Every pie. Anyway, go here for the story:
http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9910/22/sick.tired/index.html
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
RESUSCITATED BY CONGRESS
Now that Congress has made it easier for banks to buy insurance companies,
insurance stocks are going up based on buyout fever. Even Allstate, despite
poor earnings, bad press, and rotten management. We predict it won't last.
It's a momentary respite. There are still some bad truths about Allstate to
hit the media which will counteract this congressional gift to insurance
companies. Sure wish the $#@$# in Congress could make Wages surge. But as
usual, they are enriching everyone But the folks who voted for them.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CAN YOUR HMO KILL YOU?
Your HMO: Guardian of Health or Profit?
HMOs and managed care efficiently use health care resources to save patients
money on premiums. Doctors are happier, patients are healthier. Greed by the
new giants of health care is strictly curtailed by the ever-present threat
of patient lawsuits should anything go wrong. And doctors are fierce
advocates for their patients' needs, guaranteeing good care. It's a good
thing Congress didn't succeed in creating cumbersome regulations for the
industry in the summer of 1999.
That's the image. And HMOs certainly have been efficient--for the executives
who profit from them. Consider these pay packages for top execs of HMO and
managed care companies, as detailed in Jamie Court and Francis Smith's
"Making a Killing: HMOs and the Threat to Your Health."
*Malik Hassan, CEO of Foundation, made $17.2 million in 1996 with stock in
1997 worth $166.4 million;
*William McGuire, CEO of United Healthcare, made $14.7 million in 1996 with
1997 stock worth $74.7 million;
*Leonard Shaeffer, CEO of Wellpoint, made $14.2 million in 1996 with $16.5
million in stock in 1997.
Court and Smith list ten other robber barons of health care whose stock
options are in the millions and tens of millions. When mergers happen, they
make more: former U.S. Healthcare CEO Leonard Abramson, now on the board of
Aetna, made nearly $920 million when U.S. Healthcare was acquired by Aetna!
These hundreds of millions of dollars could have been used for health care.
And HMOs have certainly proven popular--with employers who often foot some
or most of the premium costs: Just one company, the newly combined Aetna and
Prudential, will insure one out of every ten Americans.
Meanwhile, the quality of health care provided is dropping, not rising.
Recent statistics are alarming:
* HMO patients are 59% more likely to have problems getting treatment than
those who have health insurance not tied to an HMO;
* HMO patients over 65 are 93% more likely to have worse outcomes than
fee-for-service patients;
These problems are so prevalent that:
* 55% of Americans fear that when they are sick their HMO will be more
interested in saving money than providing the best medical care;
* 48% of all Americans say they know someone who has trouble with their HMO
including getting referred to a specialist or getting the HMO to pay an
emergency room bill.
Cutbacks in care to boost the bottom line have changed the doctor-patient
relationship. Doctors' decisions on what care is appropriate are now
reviewed, and often vetoed, at the HMO's head office by bureaucrats--who
never see the patient. One example comes from Dr. Linda Peeno, who testified
to Congress, "In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a
man. I saved [Blue Cross/Blue Shield] a half a million dollars. The decision
about the California patient [in need of a heart transplant] was made from
the 23rd floor of a marble building in Louisville, Kentucky," she added.
Despite burgeoning marketing budgets like the $61 million spent by Kaiser
Permanente in 1996 for billboards and TV ads full of smiling patients and
doctors, physicians are frustrated with the constraints on providing that
care. A 1997 internal Kaiser survey of doctors found average physician
morale, rated on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 = excellent), to be just a 2.
Worse, doctors often suffer financial penalties for providing treatment, and
are rewarded when the care they mete out is kept within harsh budgets. This
untenable situation led Doctor Daniel Fisher to write his 2,651 patients:
"As of 7/1/98 I am quitting the practice of medicine. The system of HMOs,
managed care, restricted hospitals and denial of needed medication has
become so corrupt that I cannot stomach it any longer."
The realities for patients are often grim. When David Goodrich, a deputy
district attorney in California, became stricken with cancer, HMO delays of
critical care became so acute that his doctors had to administer care
without corporate approval. It was too late: cancer that might have been
halted in time had spread, and he died. His wife, Teresa, won $120 million,
the largest verdict ever against an HMO.
Scores more patients might be called fatalities for profit. Like a little
boy, Chad Aitken, who died after having a reaction to a vaccination, and
being denied treatment. Or Betty Hale: denied a bone marrow transplant by
Blue Shield, and determined to start treatment, she was forced to raise
$30,000 by selling handicrafts she made. She survived and, thanks to her
doctors, is cancer free. But she still owes the hospital $184,000.
Now get this: unless you are a government employee like David Goodrich, when
you sign up for an HMO, you sign away your right to sue. Instead, you get
arbitration of disputes. The system is rigged in the HMO's favor: first, the
arbitrators depend on HMOs for business, and so have a vested interest in
siding with them. Second, HMOs delay the process; critically ill patients
often die before their cases are resolved. Finally, under most arrangements,
HMOs can only be forced to provide the care that has been denied, and no
punitive or other damages are awarded.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that giving patients the right
to sue would add only 1.2 percent to the cost of health-care premiums.
The system is so rigged that in 1998, the nation's largest association of
arbitrators joined with the American Bar Association and the American
Medical Association to condemn the forum of arbitration for health disputes.
The HMO response: just hire different arbitrators.
"Making A Killing: HMOs and the Threat to Your Health" contains the stories
of many people denied treatment or given inferior care--an astonishing
number of them were denied care to the point that they died--all to improve
an HMO's bottom line. The book contains an HMO-Patient Self Defense Kit for
how to fight back. Click here for more information:
http://www.commoncouragepress.com/hmo.html
OUR COMMENTS: HMOs are insurance companies, and can get away with killing
you to make a buck. Kind of explains why it is so hard to collect on
property claims. If they can get away with murder, they can get away with
anything.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted.
Mail to: Cyber Vigilante, PO Box 1613, Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com and find out why you're NOT insured.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Sun Oct 31 10:53:05 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:08:51 -0400
From: Cyber Vigilante Website
Reply-To: Cyber Vigilante Website
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Please feel free to unsubscribe by replying to this letter with UNSUB in the
subject line. Or if friends want to subscribe, have them email
kana@fcol.com with SUB in the subject line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories: Keep it Secret; Uninsured Motorist; The Old Red Herring;
Bad Faith De Jure; Old Ed; Get Met, Get Screwed
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
KEEP IT SECRET
(An Honest Industry Wouldn't Have To. The insurance industry works overtime
to keep Everything they do a secret, by convincing friendly regulators to
Not release information the public has paid to have gathered, by gag orders,
by Vacatur, by PR spinning, and by intimidation. )
Insurers Urge Regulators To Refine Confidentiality Initiative 9/3/99 The
National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) recently commended
insurance regulators for their efforts to protect insurance company
confidentiality while working to make regulation more efficient. At the same
time, NAII also expressed concern that the wording of the initiative may not
achieve the mutual goals of the industry and the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) Regulatory
Confidentiality Technical Group has been working to create an initiative
with language that would determine how insurance company information should
be protected when shared with other regulators, insurance departments and
agencies. The confidentiality initiative would then be added to a number of
NAIC's existing model laws.
"While NAII is encouraged by the progress the NAIC has made in addressing
the issue of protecting insurance company information, we have made specific
recommendations to clarify the wording of the initiative," said Robyn Simon,
NAII counsel.
According to Simon, several recommendations were sent to the NAIC by NAII
and other industry representatives, including that:
The entity receiving the confidential information should have the authority
to keep the information confidential. The current wording only requires that
the recipient "agree" to keep the information confidential;
The sharing of information would not waive any existing privileges. (During
the Technical Group's recent conference call, regulators agreed that the
waiver language should be included.)
The language should clarify that it does not authorize Commissioners to
obtain privileged insurance information.; and
The NAIC should not be given confidential insurance company information
because it may not have the ability, as a private entity, to protect that
information. Simon added that NAII and the industry believe that it is
difficult to draft standard language without knowing what type of
information is to be subject to the language. Consequently, we will be
raising our concerns, as the various working groups contemplate what types
of information will be shared and how the standard language fits into the
selected models.
The NAIC is working toward approval and passage of this initiative by its
December meeting in San Francisco.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
UNINSURED MOTORIST
(We get a Lot about Allstate cheating and lowballing on uninsured motorist
coverage. Here is another. As usual, their petty theft results in a big
financial hardship for the victim.)
On Jan. 31, 1999, my daughter was involved in a accident with the Canton
police department. There is no doubt that the officer ran the light at
maximum speed injuring my daughter and hitting another vehicle that was
headed east bound at the light. My insurance company which was All-State
paid the car off because the officer totaled the car. All-State paid the
claim on the car and a portion of the medical bill which was covered up
under their policy. All-Stated canceled my insurance with them because of a
previous accident that my wife had during an ice storm in December of 98.
My daughter was an uninsured motorist under my policy at the time of her
accident in my vehicle. All-State filed the claim under collision part of my
policy which should have been filed under uninsured motorist of the policy.
All-State sent me an insurance bill for fifty-two hundred dollars for the
year. If All-State had any care about me as an policy holder, they would
have filed the accident claim up under the uninsured motorist of the policy
instead of the collision. Although All-State is seeking restitution from the
city of Canton for the claim they are trying to kill two birds with one
stone. They are killing me and the city of Canton, MS. The police officer
and the other party that was involved in the accident is also suing me
through All-State which has me in an nightmare event. P.S.- General public
beware of the sovereign immunity that the supreme court has ruled in their
favor.
Timothy Chambers
vas2hon7@netdoor.com
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE OLD RED HERRING
Allstate Seeks $18 Million in Fraud Suits 10/20/99 3:58:12 PM
NORTHBROOK, Ill., Oct 20, 1999, (A. M. Best via COMTEX) -- Allstate
Insurance Co. is seeking $15 million in damages from a Long Beach, Calif.,
medical group that allegedly filed fraudulent claims or overcharged for
services.
Allstate is suing two doctors who own a dissolved medical corporation,
National Medical Group Inc., alleging they were part of a scheme to upcode
claims or bill for treatment never rendered. In addition, Allstate claims a
nonqualified physician's assistant performed exams in connection with most
of 296 claims submitted between 1994 and 1998.
In a separate case, Allstate is seeking $3 million in damages from Sunnyside
Medical Clinic, Fresno, Calif. In that case, Allstate said doctors charged
too much for routine, "if not superficial," exams.
The suits are similar to many filed by Allstate around the country. Allstate
has an A+ rating from A.M. Best Co. and trades on the New York Stock
Exchange as "ALL."
===============================
OUR COMMENTS: Allstate does this all the time to terrorize doctors. Upcoding
is just a difference of opinion in diagnosis, and Allstate of course wants
the lowest diagnosis, but they try to make it sound like a crime. Then their
PR men ballyhoo it all over so they seem like victims instead of criminals.
They seem to do this every time they are under a cloud. It's rather like the
DA's who are corrupt do-nothings, but who always make a bunch of marijuana
drug busts right before election, to get newspaper coverage ;')
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BAD FAITH DE JURE
I thought I'd include an example of a bad faith case in this newsletter,
although this is a mild one. Allstate usually does much worse.
===============================
Pelkey v. Allstate Insurance Company
Court of Appeal, Fourth District (January 6, 1998)
In a first party case alleging bad faith, where there has been a payment of
benefits, the damages sought are for the alleged delay in receipt of those
benefits. This case examines what facts must be alleged to support a claim
for damages.
Rebecca Pelkey was seriously injured in an automobile accident. She was not
at fault. After settlement with the tortfeasor, an underinsured motorist
case was filed against her own insurance company, Allstate Insurance
Company. Rebecca's husband made a loss of consortium claim. The amount
collected from the tortfeasor was $50,000. The Allstate limit was $100,000.
Demand was made for the remaining $50,000.
Allstate initially offered $25,000. This was rejected by the Pelkeys, who
demanded arbitration. After a year of litigation, Allstate offered the
remaining policy limits, which was accepted by the Pelkeys.
The Pelkeys then filed this bad faith action against Allstate alleging the
12-month delay in paying the balance of the underinsured motorist limits was
bad faith. They alleged they suffered emotional distress and out-of-pocket
expenses, including costs of suit and attorneys' fees. Allstate demurred to
the complaint on various grounds. The trial court sustained the demurrer
without leave to amend. The complaint was dismissed.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision was reversed with directions.
The Court noted that the appeal was limited only to the challenge of the
propriety of the court's ruling sustaining the demurrer to the count for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Thus, the
Court looked to the allegations of that count to see if they were properly
pled.
The gravamen of this count was that the Pelkeys were damaged by Allstate's
failure to properly and timely evaluate and settle their claim when it was
alleged that liability was reasonably clear. The Court stated there are two
types of bad faith actions that may be brought on a first party case. The
first type of claim is where it is alleged benefits are due under the policy
which have been withheld without proper cause. The second type of case is
where policy benefits were withheld for a time, but eventually paid in full.
The Court noted in such a case, the claim must allege, as well, proximately
caused consequences in the form of cognizable damages. The claimant must
plead with specificity just how the interim withholding of policy benefits
resulted in their suffering real economic damages for which they were not
compensated by reason of the receipt of their policy benefits.
Here, the plaintiffs had alleged that they had suffered loss of interest,
plus attorneys' fees and costs. Nowhere did they allege how they were
damaged by Allstate's alleged bad faith. The Court noted that the attorneys'
fees could have been incurred in connection with the arbitration. The Court
stated that, in general, it is not a breach of the implied covenant for an
insurer to request arbitration. Furthermore, here, it was the Pelkeys, and
not Allstate, who requested arbitration, and so any attorneys' fees incurred
in connection with the arbitration would not have been caused by Allstate.
The Pelkeys were required to allege the necessity for incurring attorneys'
fees.
However, the Court felt it was unfair to dismiss the action. It ordered the
matter back to the trial court with an opportunity to amend to allege the
manner in which the Pelkeys were damaged. The judgment was therefore
reversed.
OUR COMMENTS: Sounds like the Pelkeys are screwed, since they are going back
to the trial court that initially judged against them. I just thought I'd
include this as a warning. Insurers are such old pros at the legal game
that even when they Do practice obvious bad faith, they can wriggle out of
it. In this case, the delay and distress alone was apparently not enough to
adjudge bad faith. (although try to live as a person disabled by an accident
waiting a few years for the insurer to pay, and it's Pretty upsetting.)
We got this through Dave S. from Low, Ball and Lynch law corporation.
(Honest to God, that's their name ;') We talk so much about lowballing by
Allstate it is a bit funny. But anyway, they have a really good weekly law
breifing (with archives) on insurance matters. It might pay you to visit.
Go to http://www.lowball.com/
Since these guys do insurance Defense (ie, work for insurers) the lowball
URL is really amusing. Hard to believe they don't see it, or maybe they are
just flouting their work ;')
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SOME PERSONAL DETAILS ON OLD ED
(I thought it would be nice to give a personal view of the man who runs
America's most corrupt insurer. This is from a company insider. I must
say, I'm not surprised by the details of his character. No doubt he pulled
the wings off flies as a child.)
=====================================
Ed Liddy is viewed as cold, calculating, and arrogant. He's from Elizabeth,
New Jersey originally. He was asked by one of his Vice Presidents who was
also from Elizabeth, New Jersey, where specifically he had lived. He
replied, "I don't recall." He obviously thought a mere VP had no right to
make such a personal inquiry. Of course, "I don't recall" is every
Allstate's favorite expression, particularly at depositions.
Ed is reported to be a very light drinker, a tennis player, and always wore
a Sears shirt. (For those not aware, Allstate was spun off from Sears,
which is just as crooked, having just paid an Enormous fine for breaking
credit and bankruptcy laws.)
We also know from another source that old Ed is publicly abusive to his
assistants. Not a nice man to have around on the job, IMHO.
We're still digging for info on Ed. If anyone else has some, feel free to
send it in. =============================
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GET MET GET SCREWED
(In case anyone other there was churned by Metlife, they are playing games
with the settlement, just like Prudential did. Met is another company we
hear a lot of bad stuff on.)
METLIFE MUST RECEIVE CLAIMS BY NOV. 2
Jane Bryant Quinn
What passes for justice in the class-action lawsuits against life insurance
companies continues to plod its tragic way through the courts. Tragic,
because so many trusting people aren't truly being made whole.
A deadline is fast approaching for some 7 million policyholders of
Metropolitan Life--in fact, approaching faster than they may think.
The MetLife lawsuit alleged a number of deceptive sales practices. Among
them: replacing sound policies with unsound policies that didn't last;
deceiving customers about the policies' possible future cost; and
mis-selling tax-deferred annuities for IRAs and other retirement accounts.
MetLife says it did nothing wrong, and is settling only to avoid further
litigation. On Dec. 2, a court will decide whether to approve the deal.
In general, you're included in the settlement if you bought a cash-value
policy or tax-deferred annuity between Jan. 1, 1982, and Dec. 31, 1997--even
if you gave up the annuity or let the policy lapse.
Before I go any further, however, I have an urgent message for MetLife
policyholders. Some of you are in imminent danger of being misled.
In August, you were mailed a booklet, summarizing the settlement. On the
cover, it says that you "must decide before November 2" whether to opt out
of the deal (because you want to sue separately) or whether to make a
specific claim for restitution.
You might assume that your reply has to be postmarked by that date, which is
usually the case with class-action settlements.
Not so. MetLife has to receive your decision by Nov. 2. If you haven't
acted, send your reply right now, by an overnight courier service, not
regular mail. Otherwise, any special claim will be shut out.
Inside the booklet, MetLife discloses that your reply has to be in hand by
Nov. 2. But the statement on the cover makes it appear that you can wait a
few more days, before you delve into the fine print.
MetLife's vice president for public relations, Kevin Foley, says there was
no intention to mislead. "We took our best shot at having people
understand," he says.
There's another way that I think the disclosures may confuse you. It
involves MetLife's so-called "general relief." That's what you get if you
make no special claim or if your claim arrives at MetLife after Nov. 2.
Under general relief, everyone who bought a life insurance policy gets a
tiny, extra policy. Everyone who bought a tax-deferred annuity gets a tiny
accident-insurance policy (payable only if you die accidentally).
The packet you got from MetLife includes a "benefit voucher," stating the
size of your extra benefit. An example is "Estimated Settlement Death
Benefit Amount: $3,125."
But this extra insurance will stay in force only for one to five years. The
older you are, the less extra coverage you get and the sooner it will lapse.
Your voucher doesn't mention the fact that this coverage is temporary.
You're merely told you'll receive a "free benefit." You might logically
assume that the benefit is permanent. To learn the facts, you have to dig
through the booklet's legalese.
Foley says, "We're not trying to hide the facts. If you open the booklet,
you can see the way it plays out."
If you think your agent deceived you about the coverage you bought, you have
to file for something called "claim evaluation." That gives you a shot at
getting actual money back, or getting a broken policy repaired.
MetLife MUST have these claims in hand by Nov. 2, or you're out of luck. The
same date applies if you want to opt out of this settlement, to preserve
your personal right to sue.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted.
Mail to: Cyber Vigilante, PO Box 1613, Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com and find out why you're NOT insured.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:20:12 -0400
Visit CYBERVIGILANTE'S GUESTBOOK
Insurers seem to have a Terrible time with PIP payments. They're always
pulling tricks. Here are the latest.
Allstate, GEICO, and State Farm sued for $100 million Did these three
major auto insurers cheat customers out of personal injury claim money?
http://www.insure.com/auto/classactions899.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Mon Jul 26 02:22:03 1999
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
Excerpt
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The UNUM / CDC Corruption Connection -- The Inside
Document Uncovered
(The Washington Post got half the story -- we've got the other half ;')
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THE UNUM / CDC CORRUPTION CONNECTION
[ NOTE: A Link to Our Transcript of the Related Secret UNUM Document
Follows This Article. ]
GAO to Probe Diversion Of CDC Research Funds Audit: Money for Chronic
Fatigue Study Used Elsewhere
By Valerie Strauss Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 21, 1999;
Page A19
The General Accounting Office is launching an investigation into how and why
the prestigious Centers for Disease Control and Prevention diverted millions
of dollars appropriated by Congress for chronic fatigue syndrome research to
other programs.
As the probe by Congress's investigatory arm gets underway, top officials at
the Atlanta-based agency are moving to remedy what they acknowledged in a
statement was a "breach of CDC's solemn trust" that "is in direct conflict
with its core values."
The diversion of money was detailed in a May audit by the inspector general
of the Department of Health and Human Services; HHS oversees the centers.
The audit said that nearly $9 million approved by Congress for chronic
fatigue syndrome research in recent years was spent by the CDC on other
research and that more than $4 million more may have been misspent. The
audit also said the agency gave false information to Congress about how the
money was spent. It is illegal to lie to Congress. The IG did not address
the issue of why the money was diverted.
Chronic fatigue syndrome is a debilitating disease characterized by profound
fatigue and lack of stamina.
"I take the findings and the need to do something about them in a
substantive way extremely seriously," new CDC Director Jeffrey P. Koplan
said in an interview yesterday. He said he did not know of any other similar
diversion of funds from other research programs.
Among other actions, Koplan said he has, in recent days:
* Made a public apology for providing misleading information to Rep. John
Edward Porter (R-Ill.), who heads a House subcommittee that oversee's the
agency's budget.
* Agreed to restore over the next four years the nearly $9 million that had
been diverted. The money will be taken from the National Center for
Infectious Diseases (NCID), Koplan said.
* Established probationary status for the NCID's Division of Viral and
Rickettsial Diseases, which houses the chronic fatigue research program.
For the first time in the CDC's history, a division director will not be
able to determine the division's budget -- a result of the probationary
status. That authority will reside, until January 2001, with Koplan's
office.
* Required training for all CDC managers and staff responsible for budget
and accounting functions to ensure that they know the statutory and
regulatory requirements for the use of federal funds.
Koplan said he is committed to restoring the faith of Congress in the
agency. But on the heels of the IG audit, the GAO is nonetheless undertaking
an investigation into the diversion, nearly a year after Sen. Harry M. Reid
(D-Nev.) requested one.
"Now that we have proof the funds were misused, we can work on making up
lost time, and getting this research effort back on track," Reid said.
Kim Kenney, executive director of the Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction
Syndrome Association of America, said she finds it "encouraging" that Koplan
is restoring much of the misused money. Her organization has worked for
years to force the agency to admit the problem.
"The proof will be how the actions unfold, the way that the research is
conducted from here on out and in how responsive the agency is to this plan
they have put forward," Kenney said. "They are talking the talk right now.
Their tone is encouraging, but I want to see them actually come through with
some action."
The diversion was first disclosed to Congress last year by CDC researcher
William Reeves, who as chief of the viral exanthems and herpesvirus branch
is directly responsible for the agency's chronic fatigue syndrome research
program. He reported then that his boss, division director Brian Mahy, had
moved the funds out of research for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Koplan declined yesterday to say whether Mahy would be disciplined, saying
he could not discuss personnel matters. Mahy did not return phone calls.
The director of the CDC is allowed to transfer money from one research
program to another, but lower-level employees are not allowed to do so.
And now, what you've been waiting for. The UNUM connection. How the Southern
Command of America's largest disability insurer, also in Atlanta with the
CDC, lobbied and proselytized to have CFS Not recognized as a disease in
order to save money on payouts. We have to wonder who will be getting a big
job at UNUM after their retirement from the CDC. Here is the link to our
preamble and the UNUM internal document, along with a rebuttal of UNUM's
distortions by a prominent CFS advocate:
http://www.insurancejustice.com/cdc.html
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours,
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted:
Cyber Vigilante
PO Box 1613
Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com And find out why you're NOT insured.
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Tue Jul 20 01:49:42 1999
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:27:51 -0400
From: cybercoyote@mindspring.com
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
The Whole Issue
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Today's Stories: We Need NJ Stories; Achin' at Aetna; How it Used to be;
DOI Runaround; May he
Have Many Allstate Roommates; UNUM Victims, Call Mr. Metz; Good God,
Another 'Rogue' Site
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
WE NEED NEW JERSEY STORIES
===============================
Hi, saw your web site. I am a reporter with the Bergen Record newspaper in
our state capital bureau in Trenton. Do you have any homeowner insurance
complaints regarding New Jersey customers of Allstate. I am doing a consumer
story on homeowners insurance.
Thanks, Randy Diamond.
=================================
Please email Randy, not us, at Diamond@bergen.com
But only if you have New Jersey Allstate stories or can put him in contact
with someone who does.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ACHIN' AT AETNA
We were looking at the doctor's ranking of HMOs on www.healthpages.com, and
the company that appears to rank consistently near or at the bottom in
nearly every region is AETNA. A good company to stay away from if you value
your life.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
HOW IT USED TO BE, AND HOW IT GOT WORSE (An Email Essay by Don Levy )
It's going to take some very honest, very smart and very persistent lawyers
to make serious headway on this issue, and it's going to also take some
young, energetic, smart and persistent folks whom the lawyers represent to
make things change.
I have seen some huge changes in the insurance industry in my life. I'm 62
and when I was a kid, it was obvious that when someone with a "good"
insurance company suffered a loss, the carrier fell all over itself to make
things right. My dad was a businessman, and from time to time over the
years, had insurance situations arise. Never did he have any problem: one
call did it all and the adjuster usually came out within hours. Once, when
our furniture, which was in storage at a Bekins warehouse, was badly damaged
by a fire there, they made a settlement the same day, and there was no
haggling over replacement value. My parents were able to immediately go out
and purchase new furniture for our move.
That all changed in the Eighties. It changed because insurance companies had
a long run of very profitable speculation on real estate and development of
properties for the previous decade or two. It SEEMED that such investments
could only go up, and they lost their conservatism and took much more
speculative gambles. Prior to that, insurance companies had been absolutely
conservative in how they handled their money, at least all the top ones did.
When the bottom fell out of the Savings and Loan industry and then Real
Estate spiraled down to leave many big investments devastated, this changed
the whole tenor of the insurance industry. Before, they had used the money
they made (and, even more importantly, the reserves they held for paying out
claims) to invest in rock-solid, very secure things like treasury bills,
blue chip stocks and bonds, high-rated municipal bonds, and the like. The
yield had been small, but very steady and reliable, and because of the huge
reserves they held, very, very profitable in total amounts (if not
percentages).
Now, with the bad investments, they were in deep doodoo. They had gambled
and lost, big time. In the past, they had had more than enough money to
cover claims. Now they had to really sweat to stay afloat. And they weren't
exactly happy to explain to their shareholders that the reason they were in
financial difficulty was bad money management on a colossal scale. So they
blamed the claimants.
The first place I noticed the change was in the health insurance field.
Prior to the mid-80s, what a doctor did for a patient was strictly up to the
two of them, and the insurance simply covered the expenses. Yes, there were
some greedy doctors who charged for too much and for too many unnecessary
services, but the vast majority were mostly just doing their jobs, with
their patient's benefit the highest consideration. Any abuses could easily
have been handled without overhauling the system.
But the insurance companies, faced with huge losses they needed to somehow
fix, began to nitpick claims. And they discovered that this intimidated both
doctors and patients, and that mostly they got away with it, even when the
charge was justified, appropriate and fair. The doctors were afraid to argue
for fear of being accused of insurance fraud and greed; they had licenses
that had taken years to acquire and families to protect. And patients were
afraid of authority: is there any doubt that to the average person huge
companies like Allstate are "authority"? There was also a common
misunderstanding by patients (which is still common today) that an insurance
company can cancel you for making a health care claim they consider
excessive, or making too many claims, period. And most patients are not
really up to fighting such huge entities. So together, the doctors and
patients mostly just caved in. The doctors especially blew it, since by
banding together they could have successfully fought off a lot of the
ridiculous arguments about their so-called excessive charges.
This accomplished two things: it slowed and then reversed the financial
bloodletting of the insurance companies' coffers, which had been due to
their own mismanagement of money, and then it made them greedy for more.
While it's true they had to hire an army of "gatekeepers" to make this
happen on a steady basis, it's also true that the gatekeepers worked for
THEM, so that they could adjust the "flow" simply by issuing administrative
rules. Believe me, in health insurance, they have honed it to an incredible
art.
When I was in my thirties, I was absolutely confident that with my health
insurance and my doctor, there would be no stone unturned should my health
take a turn for the worse. I treasured that insurance.
At 62, just when I probably need insurance the most in my life, I am now
uncovered (holding my breath for Medicare to kick in) because buying
insurance today is so outrageously expensive, ESPECIALLY when you realize
that you will have to fight the insurer tooth and nail on virtually every
expense, perhaps at a time when neither health nor time allows it. I get
sick to my stomach when I read about people facing life-threatening (or
crippling) illnesses that must be treated promptly encountering delay after
delay, threatening even survival. I'd frankly just as soon take my chances
at the county hospital, dismal though it is.
Well, once the big insurance companies saw what power the word "NO" had in
health claims adjustment, and how little opposition they actually
encountered, they immediately generalized this to their other types of
policies. Anyone who's my age and remembers dealing with a car accident
thirty years ago, versus today, can attest to how difficult it's become with
virtually all carriers. Making a claim today leaves one feeling dirty, as if
you intentionally got hit by the truck to make a buck, and that you are just
trying to rip off the carrier. Every single repair is nitpicked. The
claimant often has to wait outrageous periods of time for settlement, and
finds the whole process exhausting. Many, many of them just let it go and
accept what they're given, or just walk away.
This process has now spread to virtually every kind of insurance, and it
appears to me that the only way it will now be reversed is through
legislation and judicial process, both tedious and expensive. I think the
only hope is through people joining forces. A lone claimant is in a terrible
position. Before the eighties, there was a bond of trust between insurance
companies and their insureds. Insurance was vital to business and individual
survival, and both sides treated each other with respect. Premiums were low
because insurance companies invested the premium income wisely (NOT because
of some other factor), and people would make paying premiums one of their
highest priorities.
The way, in my opinion, that Allstate got away with what they did in the
Northridge quake, was that we, the claimants, were isolated from each other
and could not compare notes, which would immediately have shown a pattern. I
wonder how many other owners of older homes, for example, received exactly
the same "the damaged happened before OR after the quake, but not DURING or
because of it because this house is old" response and just let it go.
So, my interest is to be one of those joiners and to give my moral support
to all legitimate, legal efforts to move the pendulum back to the center. If
I can help you or others in any way to make that happen, I will do whatever
I can. Please feel free to call on me.
Regards,
Don
TeddyToo@aol.com
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DOI RUNAROUND
Insurance people will often tell you how strictly regulated they are by
their state Department of Insurance. This often gives people the mistaken
impression that your DOI will help you with a claim. This is simply not
true.
DOIs are not empowered to handle a claim, nor can they compel an insurer to
settle one. Here is what will really happen if you write your DOI with a
complaint.
They will send you a form letter claiming to look into it and then will ask
the insurer to respond. If the insurer responds with a pack of lies, saying
you wouldn't cooperate, for instance, when you bent over backward to settle
the claim, the DOI will drop your case, believing the insurer. After all,
many DOI employees are industry retreads, who used to work for insurers.
Many insurance commissioners got elected with industry money, or if
appointed, their boss was so elected. And a Lot go right to the industry for
a sweet job right after their term is up.
So guess where their sympathy lies.
If you keep complaining to the DOI they will simply write a haughty letter
saying they are only a regulatory and not a judicial agency, and can do
nothing. Then they'll drop you.
If either party goes into litigation, or the insurer says your claim is
fraudulent, even if it's a lie, they will drop you.
If you go to their "arbitration," it is usually non-binding -- so unless
it's a real lowball the insurer will just laugh and walk away, or appeal, as
Allstate does in nearly 100% of Pennsylvania cases, according to a posting
on our front page. You're in a lose / lose situation -- you get a lowball or
another stall.
The only thing DOIs do is a market conduct exam if they get a lot of
complaints, and if they feel so disposed. This leads to a laughably tiny and
non-publicized fine, which is so small compared to what the insurer gets by
killing valid claims, that it actually encourages wrongdoing.
Your only recourse is a lawyer, but you will find they only take big cases,
easy cases, or sweet cases. There are a lot you can't get help with. You
can't get help Anywhere.
And that's where a claimant is in the nineties. It wasn't always thus. In
the eighties, conservative and respected insurers invested in the
real-estate bubble. When it burst, instead of biting the bullet, they made
things up by shaving claims. They found they could get away with this due to
being so highly respected. It worked for quite a while, thanks to huge
"campaign contributions" on the state and federal level, where laws were
passed to protect their wrongdoing, and massive PR to the media. There was a
time when they might have gone back to the old, honest way of doing
business, but then there was a wave of demutualizations -- insurers became
stock companies and had to wrest ever greater profits from "claim cost
reduction," which is just buzzwords for shaving claims, stalling claims, and
cheating claimants. That's how we see it and that's how it is.
As for this baloney that many people simply "don't read their insurance
contract," most of the people who write us are savvy folks -- conservative
and careful independent professionals or entrepreneurial businessmen. They
know enough to read a contract. In fact, most were careful enough to buy
Extra protection, such as umbrella policies -- to find out they all are just
a con.
We aren't making this up. It's not anecdotes and incidents. There is too
much of a pattern and there are too many cases that show Exactly the same
tricks being pulled all over the nation. However, people who work in large
companies often see only a tiny part of things, and get filled with rah-rah
and brainwash, so even most Allstaters don't realize what their company has
become. Liddy and his board certainly know, but they aren't telling since
they are getting filthy rich playing games with their options. The agents
are starting to find out, perhaps too late to save the company.
People keep saying none of this has to do with anything, since an insurance
CEO's only duty is to increase shareholder value, not follow rules of
morality or common decency or good citizenship. But why is Allstate's stock
tanking when they are making massive profits by cheating people? High
ranking funds like Janus do deep research into any problems a company might
have. Do you really think institutional investors and the savvy
investigators they hire are Unaware of all this bad publicity, from FBI
raids to agent uprisings to multiple websites to multimillion dollar
judgments, and suits by state attorneys general, along with billions in
delayed legal cases that are finally coming to court? Do you think they're
stupid or blind, or buy the bilge of the Allstate Pom-Pom boys who cheerlead
that company and brainwash employees? I doubt it. They know the score, which
is why this stock is tanking.
And Allstate cannot hide behind the respect formerly given insurers, since
they have destroyed that -- more and more people are becoming aware, and
many insurance companies, which were formerly highly respected, enjoy a
reputation somewhere below bank robbers -- who at least don't betray
anyone's trust or destroy lives.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MAY HE HAVE MANY ALLSTATE ROOMMATES
Sunday, 18 July 1999 Insurance executive gets nearly 6 years
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The president of a now-defunct insurance company who
admitted stealing more than $2 million to support what he called his
addiction to sex was sentenced to over five years in prison.
A federal judge rejected Richard Maack's request for leniency yesterday and
sentenced him to five years, 10 months in prison.
Maack, 41, said he stole huge sums from clients to support a lifestyle
devoted to maintaining a series of sexual relationships with strippers. He
bought one dancer a car and rented her an apartment, he said.
Maack pleaded guilty in April 1998 to stealing about $2.3 million from 1993
to 1995 while an official of Insurance Claims Solutions.
U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz listened to a full day of testimony from
three experts on addictions before passing sentence.
``However his sexual problems may be described, Mr. Maack could have
controlled his actions,'' Katz said. ``He could have adhered to law, and he
could have made money legally, rather than steal it.''
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
UNUM VICTIMS, CALL MR. METZ
UNUM/Provident Claimants
If you are collecting LTD benefits from UNUM or still trying to collect,
John Metz of the California Consumer Health Care Council urgently needs to
hear from you right away. He is trying to establish certain patterns of
behavior so he can help others more effectively. Contact him at:
pbg@sonic.net John Metz California Consumer Health Care Council "PROTECTING
HEALTH CARE CONSUMERS" 200 Grand Avenue, Room 106 - Oakland, CA 94610 -
1-888-CAL-COUNCIL - www.cchcc.org
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GOOD GOD, ANOTHER 'ROGUE' SITE
Sunday, 18 July 1999 Rogue sites on Web poke at politicians Scripps Howard
News Service
The Internet has made Zack Exley more than just another voiceless citizen
disenchanted with the state of politics.
The 29-year-old computer programmer from Somerville, Mass., has managed to
royally irritate Republican presidential candidate George Bush.
He's also managed to have his views widely quoted by the news media and
attract more than a million visitors to his Web site.
All because of a $70 investment securing the rights to the Web address
http://www.gwbush.com.
Exley has used his Web site to parody Bush's official Web site
(http://www.georgewbush.com), portraying the Texas governor as a spoiled
rich kid who used drugs and led a wild life in his youth but now advocates
harsh penalties for drug users.
Bush's campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Asked if Exley's Web site ought to be shut down, Bush answered: ``There
ought to be limits to freedom.''
The quote drove traffic at Exley's Web site up to astronomical proportions.
``This is what happens when an average American who is interested gets a
forum,'' Exley said. `` That's also why Bush thinks there ought to be limits
to freedom on the Internet.''
The Bush campaign argues that Exley should have to register with the FEC and
disclose his sources of funding because he expressly advocated the defeat of
a candidate.
Even as candidates explore the Internet's potential to boost their
prospects, critics are finding new ways to undermine them.
When it became apparent first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was likely to run
for the U.S. Senate from New York, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a
potential GOP opponent, launched an anti-Clinton Web site called
http://www.hillaryno.com.
The site sought to immediately tap into anti-Clinton sentiment as a source
for volunteers and contributions.
But in politics, as in life, what goes around, usually comes around. Soon
after Giuliani launched his Web site at http://www.rudyyes.com critics
responded with a parody site, http://www.yesrudy.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yours
Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL: kana@fcol.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489
Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be very gratefully accepted:
Cyber Vigilante
PO Box 1613
Franklin, NC 28744-1613
Please come to http://www.insurancejustice.com And find out why you're NOT insured.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Sun Jul 18 16:04:29 1999
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:36:24 -0400
From: cybercoyote@mindspring.com
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================
Except
Here's a very interesting website at
http://www.thehealthpages.com
It contains a sections on how doctors rate HMOs. Pay special attention to
the categories that have to do with efforts to limit care for the patient
and interfere with doctors' medical decisions.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From cybercoyote@mindspring.com Thu Jul 15 01:22:40 1999
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:44:36 -0400
From: cybercoyote@mindspring.com
To: vigilante@primeline.com
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Insurers
==============================
Excerpts
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Letter to the Editor ( Of Underwriters Magazine )
Crying the Blues
Now we have an industry like the insurance industry -- a three trillion
dollar industry -- crying the blues over a possible bill that will protect
the rights of a claimant to sue for bad faith against an insurer. All too
often and in many cases, this same industry in many cases has shown bad
faith toward a claimant will now protect the claimant. This is an industry
with thousands of lawyers and more money than Fort Knox to go against the
poor little person without the resources to fight them.
Sorry folks, I cannot feel sorry for the crying the blues insurance
companies and their fear of a bill to protect the little guy.
Bob Craig BDCR41@aol.com
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
HMO Alert :
From: Carol Banks To:
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 9:47 PM
Subject: JFANow: Please Send HMO and Managed Care Stories A.S.A.P. !
Justice For All
jfa@jfanow.org
Urgent: Send HMO and Managed Care Stories A.S.A.P.
If you have ever had a problem with managed care, this is your chance to
help change the system. Congress is considering a patients bill of rights
this week.
Don't think that HMOs don't affect you just because you are on Medicare or
Medicaid. In many states, HMOs are currently, or may soon be,
(mis-)managing one or both!
Even if you have sent me your (horror) story before, we need stories sent
directly to the Senate now! Here's one "call for stories" from Senator
Kennedy's staffer Connie Garner:
"We are looking for MORE stories from both consumers and physicians about
problems in services and health care delivery in HMO's and Managed Care
situations.
I am particularly in need of stories that affect people with disabilities
and/or special needs.
Please have people e-mail: congarner@aol.com OR
Connie_Garner@labor.senate.gov or FAX to Connie 202-224-5128
We are not getting what we need to be strong next week on pushing through
the "bill of rights" and this will probably be our only shot. It is being
taken so seriously by the business community that NFIB (small business) has
a "war room" set up to oppose it and have spent millions of dollars on their
t.v./media campaign. That is why I NEED to have consumer and provider
voices on this issue so that Kennedy can represent REAL PEOPLE on this issue
!!!!! Thanks, Connie"
Many of you remember NFIB from their fight against ADA and our civil rights.
They can outspend us, but we can outvote them! Please send copies of your
HMO/managed care experience to your Representative and Senators.
If you know others who have had HMO/managed care experiences, please
encourage them to do the same!
Thank you in advance!
Fred Fay Chair, Justice For All
jfa@jfanow.org
http://www.jfanow.org/
Carol Banks Founder & Co-Moderator of the Advocacy Discussion List
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fake Consumerists :
From: Harvey S. Frey MD PhD JD To:
Insurance Page
Uncivilization and its Discontents
Home Page
Email me, Bill Hammel at
bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us
READ WARNING BEFORE SENDING E-MAIL
The URL for this document is:
http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/crimelist.html
Created: December 8, 1998
Last Updated: May 28, 2000