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 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 is proud of its hardball litigation policy, says William 
Vainisi, the Allstate assistant general counsel in charge of the 

"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 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 

"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.



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 

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.



From: John Gutierrez and find out why you're NOT 

From Fri Nov 26 16:02:51 1999
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:40:06 -0500
From: The Insurer Crime Outline 
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 with SUB in the subject line. 

The Insurer Crime Outline 
  eXposing America's Bandit Industry 



Today's Stories:


(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.



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 


>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 ( -- 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 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 

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 

'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 

David Noack is an staff writer (



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.



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 
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.




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.



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 

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.




Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

EMAIL: 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 and find out why you're NOT insured.


Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

EMAIL:    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 and find out why you're NOT insured.

From 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 
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



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.

Interesting tidbit about unsealing State Farm settlement records.  Also an
idea about litigants linking up with consumer advocacy groups,

And another article about judges having discretion about what clothing
litigants may wear at trials. For your friend.


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

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.


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?



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, 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




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.



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

EMAIL:    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 and find out why you're NOT insured.


From 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 
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?



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

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.



Are you a better driver? insurer's device proves it

Monday, October 25, 1999


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.


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

"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

"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

E-mail: 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



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.



Excellent advice from an attorney on how to battle insurance companies:



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

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

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.



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.


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:



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.



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:

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



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

EMAIL:    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 and find out why you're NOT insured.


From 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 
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 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


(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.


(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

Timothy Chambers



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

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 ;')



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

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'

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

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

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 ;')


(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. =============================


(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.)


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.



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

EMAIL:    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 and find out why you're NOT insured.


   Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:20:12 -0400

   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?


From Mon Jul 26 02:22:03 1999

The Insurer Crime Outline
     eXposing America's Bandit Industry


The UNUM / CDC Corruption Connection -- The Inside
Document Uncovered
(The Washington Post got half the story -- we've got the other half ;')



[ 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

* 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:



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL:    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 And find out why you're NOT insured.

From Tue Jul 20 01:49:42 1999
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:27:51 -0400
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



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

But only if you have New Jersey Allstate stories or can put him in contact
with someone who does.



We were looking at the doctor's ranking of HMOs on, 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

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

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.





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

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

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.



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/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: John Metz California Consumer Health Care Council "PROTECTING
HEALTH CARE CONSUMERS" 200 Grand Avenue, Room 106 - Oakland, CA 94610 -



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

Exley has used his Web site to parody Bush's official Web site
(, 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

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 critics
responded with a parody site,



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran
EMAIL:    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 And find out why you're NOT insured.


From Sun Jul 18 16:04:29 1999
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:36:24 -0400
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline

The Insurer Crime Outline
     eXposing America's Bandit Industry

Here's a very interesting website at

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 Thu Jul 15 01:22:40 1999
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:44:36 -0400
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline


The Insurer Crime Outline
     eXposing America's Bandit Insurers


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


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

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

I am particularly in need of stories that affect people with disabilities
and/or special needs.

Please have people e-mail: OR 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

Carol Banks Founder & Co-Moderator of the Advocacy Discussion List


Fake Consumerists :

From: Harvey S. Frey MD PhD JD  To:  Sent:
Monday, July 12, 1999 1:30 PM Subject: back-sliding consumer groups

Organizations may not be what they seem! Here is an interesting article on
the coopting of 'consumer' groups by the very corporations they're
purporting to fight. Note the HMO Connection below. You will be happy to
know that no big corporation has offered any money to HARP. Nor has much of
anyone else, for that matter. 



Subject: Money and the Public Interest

With the ascendancy of corporate power in America came the rise of its
primary countervailing force -- citizen activism and a vibrant public
interest movement.

Citizens organized to fight the myriad ills inflicted on society by
corporate power -- from pollution and corruption, to child labor and
consumer fraud.

But some of those once vibrant citizen institutions have now morphed into
unresponsive bureaucracies. Worse yet, many have been corrupted by corporate
funders. No wonder corporate America gets away with its ongoing wave of
crime and violence -- much of the opposition has been neutralized.

Take the Greenlining Institute as a case in point.

Based in California, the Greenlining Institute is considered by many to be a
major public interest group that fights insurance company and bank
redlining -- thus its name.

But in fact, a big chunk of the group's funding comes from those same giant
corporations the Greenlining Institute was set up to counter.

Over 80 percent of the Institute's $1.1 million budget in 1997, for example,
came from major corporations, according to the group's most recent financial
disclosure statement filed with the Attorney General of California. In 1997,
Union Bank gave $235,000. Southern California Edison gave $114,494, Merrill
Lynch 88,489. And on down the list.

And on big bread and butter issues that affect the masses of California
consumers, the Institute has pulled its punches and sided with its industry

In 1998, in the most problematic case, the Institute sided with the utility
industry to defeat Proposition 9, an initiative that would have rolled back
a taxpayer funded bailout of the utility companies for bad nuclear
investments, among others.


Another case in point: Last month, three consumer groups -- Consumer Action,
Gray Panthers, and the National Consumers League -- held a press conference
in Washington, D.C. announcing the launch of a "nationwide education
campaign for seniors considering HMOs."

And where exactly did the $150,000 come from to fund this campaign?
PacifiCare Health Systems Inc., the nation's fifth largest managed care
company and operator of the country's largest Medicare HMO, Secure Horizons.

This kind of corporate funding is apparently new for Gray Panthers.

But it is nothing new for the National Consumers League -- an organization
that was started at the turn of the century to eliminate child labor, but
has morphed into a budding accounts receivable for corporate funders.

Nor for Consumer Action. According to editorial director Linda Sherry, two
years ago, the group was 100 percent funded by corporations. Currently,
Consumer Action gets money from both big corporations and big government.
Pacific Bell recently gave $100,000 to fund a Consumer Action project on
telephone fraud.

Earlier this month, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),
the country's largest and oldest Hispanic organization, endorsed the
proposed merger between Bell Atlantic and GTE.

There was no mention in LULAC's press release both GTE and Bell Atlantic are
yearly contributors to LULAC. GTE gives $25,000 a year, and Bell Atlantic
gives $35,000 a year.

LULAC executive director Brent Wilkes said that in July 1998, the companies
asked LULAC to support the merger. LULAC president Rick Dovalina met with
the CEOs of both companies to work out the agreement. Wilkes said that
during the meetings, LULAC demanded specific "assurances and deliverables."
"We were looking for companies that would be spun off," Wilkes said. "GTE is
selling some of their companies in Texas and in the Southwest. They have
specifically held one of their telephone companies out of the normal auction
process. And we helped select an Hispanic owned business partnership that
would take that company."

When asked whether he was concerned about appearances of impropriety, Wilkes
said "we are not." "We have never tied support from the companies to our
policy decisions," he said. When asked why the companies would want LULAC's
support, Wilkes said -- "to help with their regulatory process." Wilkes said
he believes the merger will benefit consumers.

But more independent consumer groups, including the Washington, D.C.-based
Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), disagree. "We don't want the merger to
go through," said CPT's Jamie Love. "GTE was in a position to compete
against Bell Atlantic. Now, they won't be."

There are independent consumer groups who refuse to take money, or be
influenced by, big corporations. But increasingly, bigger wads of money are
being waved in front of weak-kneed advocates seeking some green comfort.
Consumers beware


Feel free to forward to your congressional representatives.

From: Harvey S. Frey MD PhD JD
 To:  Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 5:46 PM
Subject: Senate to argue Patients' Bill of Rights


Responding to public opinion and pressure from the Democratic Minority, U.S.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has scheduled four days of debate
on managed health care legislation this week. A final vote is likely on
Thursday or Friday (July 15 or 16).  In a highly unusual move, the
Republican Majority Leader intends to bring to the floor the Democratic
"Patients' Bill of Rights"(S.1344) by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and
Ted Kennedy (D-MA), rather than the similarly named Republican bill (S. 326)
by Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT).  The ploy is designed to prevent votes on
potentially embarrassing pro-consumer amendments to the pro-health insurer
Republican leadership bill by Jeffords, which is expected to be offered as a
substitute for the Daschle-Kennedy bill. [Note: Procedures and details of
Senate consideration could change].

Both bills would establish minimum federal standards for HMOs and managed
care insurers.  Only the Daschle-Kennedy bill, however, would eliminate the
ERISA preemption and thereby allow patients to hold managed care insurers
legally accountable for delay or denial of needed care that results in
injury or death.  While there are other significant differences in the
bills, the question of whether to continue to provide legal immunity for
health insurers, as the Jeffords bill provides, or to grant patients the
right to sue for damages, as the Daschle-Kennedy bill provides, is seen as
the key issue.  Amendments may be offered to include medical malpractice
limits, which, of course, we all will vigorously oppose.

As the Washington Post reported, "If the only thing health plans stand to
lose in litigation is the cost of the care they denied [typical under
federal ERISA actions], 'they have every incentive to delay and delay and
deny and deny,' said Ronald F. Pollack, executive director of Families USA,
a consumer group." Health insurers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the other
business groups, which helped fashion the Jeffords bill, falsely charge that
the Daschle-Kennedy "Patients' Bill of Rights" would, by making HMOs legally
accountable, substantially raise the cost of health insurance and subject
businesses to litigation.

A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation by Coopers & Lybrand found that, if
Americans were permitted to hold their health insurers legally accountable,
premiums would increase three to 13 cents a month per enrollee. The
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of all the
provisions in the Daschle-Kennedy bill at not more than $2 per month per
enrollee.  The Daschle-Kennedy bill specifically prohibits suits against
employers, unless the employer actually makes medical treatment decisions.
There is no evidence that there would be increased litigation.

In 1997, Texas created an external review of managed care decisions and
permitted Texans to hold HMOs legally accountable.  To date, there have been
only three lawsuits.  And, while the Texas Department of Insurance estimated
there would be 4,400 complaints in the first year alone, there have been
only 531 in more than a year and a half, 46% of which were resolved in favor
of the patients.  The Texas experience suggests that the likelihood of being
held legally accountable has encouraged managed care insurers to provide
better patient care.

CALLED THE "PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS." <<<< ~~~~~NOTE: Contact information
for your Senator may be obtained by going to: ~~~~~
================================================================= >
Harvey S. Frey MD PhD JD Santa Monica, California > > Web Page: >

From Mon Jul  5 23:46:08 1999
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:11:49 -0400
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline


The Insurer Crime Outline
     eXposing America's Bandit Industry



Auto Insurers Facing Legal Challenge
By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 4, 1999; Page A1

The nation's largest automobile insurer has settled several lawsuits over
the past year that allege the company used fraudulent medical reports by
outside firms to slash or deny insurance claims submitted by people injured
in car accidents. Now, three consumer groups have gone into federal court in
Oregon seeking to unseal the records of one of the cases, arguing that it
holds clues to what could be a widespread practice within the industry.

The case, in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., involves the settlement of
a lawsuit filed by Debbie Foltz, an Oregon woman, against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Inc. After her son was injured in an auto accident,
Foltz alleged that State Farm sent her medical claim to a supposedly
independent outside firm for review, knowing that the firm would return a
phony medical analysis that said State Farm should deny or reduce the claim.

According to Foltz's lawyer and others who have represented plaintiffs in
lawsuits against auto insurers, the Foltz case, which began in 1994, is but
a small piece of a larger pattern. The use of independent, outside firms to
review medical claims is extremely common in the insurance industry, and is
even mandated in two states. The plaintiffs' lawyers charge that, in an
effort to keep down costs, insurance companies are systematically using
dubious reports from some such firms as a pretext to cut their payments for
medical treatment.

Last year, a jury in Idaho found State Farm did exactly that in one case. A
few months later, the insurer settled with Foltz and several other
policyholders who had made similar allegations.

But the details of the Foltz case and others that were settled may never be
known. A key provision of the settlement, insisted upon by State Farm, was
that U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan seal virtually the entire case
record, an apparently voluminous file containing four years of pretrial
skirmishing by lawyers for the two sides. Lawyers involved in the case are
precluded from discussing it or identifying the related cases that were
settled at the same time. The records in those cases are also believed to be

The secrecy surrounding the Foltz settlement, and the insurance industry
practices that it may shroud, is the focus of the new legal action by the
consumer groups and the Washington-based Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
Foundation. The groups are attempting to persuade Hogan to unseal the court
records in an effort to shed light on a relatively new practice by the
insurance industry that plaintiffs' lawyers say is saving insurance giants
like State Farm millions of dollars a year at the expense of their

"Consumers cannot fight what they do not know about," said Linda Sherry of
Consumer Action, one of the groups that is attempting to intervene in the

At the heart of the Foltz case and several others against major insurance
companies is a process known as "utilization review" or "paper review." It
involves the review of insurance claims by outside companies that employ
physicians and other medical experts to determine whether medical treatments
were necessary and the charges reasonable, the standard set in law. Much of
the analysis is done by computer, matching the claims submitted to an
insurance company against stored information on past treatments and charges
for the same condition.

But critics charge that some insurance companies, which began using
utilization review about 10 years ago in an attempt to root out claims for
unnecessary medical treatments and inflated charges, have entered an
alliance with unscrupulous outside firms that promise they will reduce
insurers' costs by generating reports that are all but guaranteed to
recommend denial or slashing of claims.

One such case that reached trial was in Idaho, where in 1994 Cindy Robinson
sued State Farm over a three-year delay in the payment of medical claims
stemming from an automobile accident. When the trial ended last year, the
jury awarded Robinson $2,500 in damages under her policy, $100,000 in
additional damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $9.5
million in punitive damages.

In a blistering opinion last August, Idaho District Judge D. Duff McKee
upheld the jury verdict and the amount of damages. Reviewing the testimony
in the case, McKee wrote that "the evidence was overwhelming that the
utilization review company selected by the claim examiner was a completely
bogus operation. The company did not objectively review medical records but
rather prepared 'cookie-cutter' reports of stock phrases, assembled on a
computer, supporting the denial of claims by insurance companies. The
insured's medical records were not examined and reports were not prepared by
doctors or even reviewed by doctors."

McKee said that State Farm's management knew that the reports it was
receiving from outside utilization review companies were false but condoned
the practice because it was "leading to reduced claim expenses."

"The defendant's conduct in this case was outrageous, intentional, harmful
and an extreme deviation from reasonable conduct," McKee wrote. "The
practice of manufacturing evidence to use in defeating a claim being made by
the insurance company's own insured is reprehensible."

The utilization review firm that produced the reports in Robinson's case was
Medical Claims Review Services (MCRS), which was based in Bethesda and is
now apparently defunct. Ten years ago, the company's president, Ronald E.
Gots, wrote an article in an insurance industry trade publication urging the
industry to turn to utilization review as a way to combat what he described
as the "vast economic interests" that were constantly pressing for
"exaggerated medical losses."

Gots, a physician who now heads two other companies in Rockville, did not
respond to messages left at his office.

State Farm, which has 36.7 million auto insurance clients, is appealing the
Robinson verdict. Officials at the company's Bloomington, Ill., headquarters
said they could not comment on any of the cases or the general subject of
utilization review. "Anything we say about this topic could come back to
haunt us in discovery in some case involving this," said Dave Hurst, a State
Farm spokesman.

But the cadre of plaintiffs' lawyers who daily do battle with the insurance
industry in courtrooms and law offices across the country are more than
eager to talk about the topic. "It's all over the country, these phony
medical review services. They have a computer program that says all soft
tissue injuries heal in six months."

[ CYBER VIGILANTE COMMENTS:  At Allstate, this computer program is called
Collosus.  By some quirk of programmer's humor it is named after an evil
fictional computer, except this program, although still evil, is Real.  As
for secrecy, just read our site about Vacatur, gag orders, and "silence"
deals. The insurance industry hides over Half their crimes from the press
and the unsuspecting public with these shabby maneuvers. ]



[ We often hear phony tort-reform groups, funded by insurers, whine about
out LITIGOUS society.  Yet, when an insured takes a problem to his
multimillion dollar state regulatory agency, thinking they are going to
actually regulate, the first thing they tell him is "get a lawyer." Does
anyone see something wrong here? ]

I had an Allstate insured run into my car, things went OK until I questioned
them using substandard parts to repair my car. Turns out that they would use
Manufacters. parts but from that point on they did all they could to hassle
me. Now they are saying that the shop didn't contact them to approve several
parts that were needed while the shop says that they did. The shop gave me
the name of the inspector, Allstate says that he doesn't remember seeing my
car. They now refuse to pay for the repair. Something I didn't know but
found out after talking to the Ins. Commissioner's office, the insurance
companies are only bound to pay claims by the legal system. They can deny
any claim they want and the consumers only recourse is the legal system.


Contributions to our ongoing expenses will be gratefully accepted:
Cyber Vigilante
PO Box 1613
Franklin, NC 28744-1613

Please come to And find out why you're NOT insured.

FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489

From Wed Jul 21 03:08:36 1999
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 10:13:25 -0400
Subject: "Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor.."

    [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]


A History Lesson


The Fourth of July

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the
Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as
traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked
and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another
had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or
hardships of the Revolutionary War.  They signed and they pledged their
lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were
farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated.  But they
signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty
would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships
swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to
pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British
that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the
Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions
were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted
the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward,
Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr.,
noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for
his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire.
The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home
and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a
few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.
Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were
laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning
home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he
died from exhaustion and a broken heart.  Norris and Livingston suffered
similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were
not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means
and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing
tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this
declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence,
we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred
honor." They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history
books never told you a lot of what happened in the Revolutionary War. We
didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we
fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for
granted...We shouldn't. So, take a couple of minutes while enjoying your 4th
of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for
the price they paid..............

We would all be well advised and well served to thank these great men, and
it wouldn't hurt to pull out that great document, from time to time, and
read it again. These men gave so much, often they gave all, and so many
today can not even take the time to exercise their right to vote, bought at
such a price. I can only wonder, what these men would say if they could
witness the state of our Republic in 1999.  I feel they might ask; "When did
America lose the war?"

Happy Independence Day!

Dr.Rick Rheinhart



Jim Mooney and Paula Moran

From Thu Jan 14 03:23:10 1999
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:01:23 -0500
To: The Insurer Crime Outline 
Subject: Fake Reforms, Fake Reformers and a First Amendment Issue


Well, here we are again printing news that appeared in the big  media 
first, although for illustrative purposes. We promise it won't  become a 
habit and get back to scooping them ;').  But this is the  second time in 
a short while that the NY Times has mentioned,  albeit conservatively, 
that some consumers may be getting a very  raw deal vis-a-vis insurers, 
and we thought we would commend  them -- for starting to wake up and look 
around, anyway.  

A cynic might conclude one of their editors had been screwed by  an 
insurer.  For the innocent among you, we have Already  witnessed a few 
such media "ox is gored" focuses, but we tend to  think the Times is 
honest, albeit a bit behind the curve.  If you think  insurers wouldn't be 
That dumb, they would.  They have gone mad  in their greed, and we have 
cases of everyone from TV producers to  federal banking inspectors getting 
the shaft.  The adjuster's only  job is to shave claims -- he leaves other 
worries to the lawyers,  who Never give.  

Anyway, governor Christie of NJ, although very popular, was nearly  
defeated by an opponent who ran on the one issue of reforming the  
insurers.  Like many insurance industry "friends," stooges, front  men, 
and cronies, she seized the banner of "consumerism" for  herself.  There 
are a lot of fake consumerists out there, crying for  "reforms" which are 
really excuses for the industry to profit more  and to be able to evade 
the law more.  Most of them make a very  good living -- you can tell real 
reformers by the shabbiness of their  shoes ;') 

Christie's "reforms" may actually mean more money for insurers,  and rob 
Peter to pay Paul -- giving some folks a break while  screwing other 
groups.  There is a even a provision which basically  means that the old 
and the poor can be legally discriminated  against as a group, something 
that is illegal in many states, and  against federal law as far as I know. 
 But McCarran-Ferguson, a  pro-insurer law that prohibits federal 
intervention, will protect the  industry there.  

Be very suspicious of "tort reformers" who cry rates will be lowered.  It 
has never happened in those states that bought into screwing  their 
citizens, despite the greatest profits ever for the insurance  industry in 
the last three years. Some are finally lowering rates due  to market 
pressure and bad publicity, but it has nothing to do with  "reforms" that 
strip citizens of all rights or legal recourses, insisting  they depend on 
a corrupt or worthless state DOI to protect them.  

I'd like to know where some of these "reformers," who appear to  have 
mighty bankrolls and travel all about promoting this passion,  get their 
loot. If they are not crooks, then they are Very, Very blind -  - since 
everyone you meet has an insurance horror story.  Not that  I'm cynical or 
anything -- and of course every statistic spewed by  the Insurance 
Information Institute falls straight from the lips of God  ;') 

By the way, if you think we have a political axe to grind, we got this  
from a friend who is conservative, as are many of our fighters,  perhaps 
the majority -- and Paula was a Republican until she found  where 
insurance industry money was going.  Now she's more of an  
independent/libertarian.  I used to be a liberal, but the Dems have  taken 
their share of loot, too -- although not as much -- if only for  lack of 
opportunity, not being in the congressional majority ;') 

But Neither party has Spoken Out about this hidden national  disaster, 
despite thousands of letters to congressmen and  newspapers.  

A pox on all their houses.  

Anyway, here is the article.  It is followed by a query about First  
Amendment rights from a webmaster whom an insurance  company is trying to 
close down.  An interesting puzzle.  If the  media refuses to report news 
about a national disgrace, but a  website does, shouldn't such websites 
fall under Freedom of the  Press, as long as they report news in good 
faith, to the best of  their ability? You might say a website is more 
opinionated, but I  have seen some mighty opinionated, Very political 
newspapers.   True, the big papers have more resources, but the nation was 
freed  by colonial broadsheets which had Fewer resources than we do  with 
the net.  

In our case, we have informants and contacts, we check sources  and do 
research as well as we can, we immediately retract errors,  and try our 
best to tell only the truth -- albeit with a dollop of  opinion -- All we 
don't have is a printing press or profits ;') 

The old media is pretty mum on this issue so far -- we are just  filling a 
gap.  Frankly, I would be glad to see them take it over.  I  have better 
things to do than bat my head against brick walls.   Being a 
pseudo-journalist is really not an interest of mine -- it's just  that no 
one else seems to be doing the job at present, since the  victims who 
write us are being Ignored by the press.  =============================== 

Reduction in Car Insurance Rates Set for March, but Not All  Will Benefit 


TRENTON -- The Whitman administration has scheduled the long-  awaited 15 
percent reduction in auto insurance rates for March 22,  but almost half 
of the state's drivers will not get the full savings and  some will 
instead face higher rates.  

Administration officials say only 52 percent of the state's drivers  will 
see a 15 percent reduction or more in their auto insurance bills  when 
they renew their policies this year. The savings will be  smaller or 
nonexistent for about 36 percent of the state's drivers,  including 
motorists with good driving records. And rates will rise for  12 percent 
of the state's drivers.  

The reason for the disparity in rates is that the state last fall  allowed 
insurance companies to create a new pricing system that  raises premiums 
for drivers who fall into certain categories, such as  older people and 
owners of inexpensive cars, regardless of their  driving records.  

The Whitman administration approved the new approach, known as  a tiered 
system, after ending the insurance companies' practice of  imposing 
surcharges on drivers who received speeding tickets or  who were involved 
in accidents.  

While the old surcharge resulted in higher rates for about 15  percent of 
the state's drivers, the new tiered system is expected to  increase 
premiums for up to 48 percent of the state's drivers.  

"Nearly half of the state's drivers won't even realize a rate reduction,  
thanks to the Republican-tiered rating system that allows good  drivers to 
be grouped together with drivers who have as many as  six points," said 
the Assembly minority leader, Joseph V. Doria Jr.   a Democrat from Hudson 
County. "New Jersey motorists still  haven't found what they're looking 
for: the significant car insurance  relief that was promised to them." 

But for the 52 percent of the state's drivers whose auto insurance  bills 
are expected to drop, the Whitman administration is trying to  deliver the 
savings more quickly. While the new rates go into effect  March 22, as the 
administration announced this week, drivers  would normally not be 
eligible for them until their policies expire.   So, the state has ordered 
insurance companies to allow people to  renew or request new policies with 
the lower rates beginning April  21.  

John K. Tiene, executive director of the New Jersey Insurance  News 
Service, an industry trade group, said that some insurance  companies were 
worried about processing a flood of requests for  policy renewals in 
April. "We want to see this work," he said. "But  we have to be realistic 
in implementing this major restructuring." 

Gov. Christine Todd Whitman said today that she was confident  that the 
insurance companies would be able to handle the  requests.  

"We've heard this kind of thing from the insurance industry before --  
that whatever we do to give the premium holders, the policy  holders, a 
break is going to cause the system to collapse," she  said.  

Governor Whitman pushed for a plan to lower rates after she nearly  lost 
the 1997 governor's race to her Democratic opponent, James  E. McGreevey, 
who focused on voter anger over paying the highest  auto insurance 
premiums in the nation.  

She and state lawmakers devised a plan last year that was  supposed to 
reduce rates by 15 percent for most drivers with good  records. The 
reduction was to be financed by changes in the  insurance system, 
primarily restrictions on frivolous lawsuits, that  were expected to cut 
$700 million in costs.  

But although the plan's promise was a 15 percent reduction in  rates, 
Whitman administration officials acknowledge that some  drivers may find 
that the new system does not work to their  advantage.  

Jaynee LaVecchia, the State Insurance Commissioner, said that  consumers 
should first ask their insurer about the overall cost of  their new 
policies and shop around for the most competitive rates if  they learn 
their rates are not declining by 15 percent or more.  

Both state officials and industry officials say that rates will vary by  
thousands of dollars.  

Under the new tiered system, insurance companies can impose  higher rates 
for reasons that do not have anything to do with a  driver's record.  

For example, one insurance company has announced that it will  impose 
higher rates for owners of inexpensive cars like Ford  Escorts and Honda 
Civics. Several insurance companies have  announced that they will not 
offer their lowest rates to anyone 65  years or older. Other insurance 
companies said that they will  impose higher rates on drivers who do not 
park their car in a  driveway or in a garage.  

___________ Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company 


Subject: Insurance Company Fraud 
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 13:26:09 -0600 
From: Eric Gillespie  
Organization: Logicom 


I was involved in an accident in September of 1998. The party  causing the 
accident was insured by Illinois Founders Insurance  Company. In 
attempting to process a claim for repairs to my car  and my medical 
expenses, I left two voice mail messages per day  for an entire month 
without a return call from the person handling  the claims. Meanwhile my 
car was undrivable. When the adjuster  did finally return my calls it took 
another month to repair my car,  and yet another month to reimburse me for 
out-of-pocket car rental  expenses (which, by the way, they refused to 
reimburse wholly).   They have not reimbursed me for medical expenses.  

I was so enraged by their actions, and there are many beyond the  few I 
have mentioned above, that I decided to develop a web site  describing my 
experience (I kept an intricate log of the process) for  other consumers 
to use in their pursuit of justified insurance  claims.  

We are, I felt, paying a premium for state-imposed insurance, why  should 
we not get what we pay for? 

The insurance company's site is so I 
purchased and  
http://www/ thinking they would be  appropriate for 
my experience. I have since began development of  my site at 

I have received letters from their attorneys insisting that I relinquish  
the domain names to them and cease posting information about  their 
company (information, I might add, which was either publicly  available or 
from my personal experience). Although there are  some trademark issues, 
copyright issues, etc. that may play into  this equation, based on my 
novice interpretation of constitutional  law I feel they may be violating 
my First Amendment rights.  

I would appreciate your informal opinion and suggestions for my  next 
steps. I do indeed want to adhere to the letter of the law, but I  think 
they are using their mass to quash me.  

Thank you in advance for your input.  

Eric Gillespie 773.799.3111 

Please come to Cyber Vigilante at 
And find out why you're NOT insured. 

(and don't forget to visit Eric's site at   ) 


Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:31:10 -0500
From: Jim & Paula 
Subject: [Fwd: any help available?]

I am sending this letter to the group since it is interesting because it
brings up something we see a Lot.  The insurer can't seem to find fault
with the actual claim, so they subject the claimant to incredible
harassment.  My question, if anyone out there has an answer -- is this
sort of harassment in and of itself illegal?  And can anything be done
about it, or does the claimant have to suffer it until they are
discouraged into going away?

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:38:15 -0800 (PST)
From: fran brodsky 
Subject: any help available?

Hi. I'm having horrendous problems like so many of you! I reported a
theft in the garage of my rental. Ever since then I have been
"investigated" and threatened by State Farm. They have told me they are
going to the IRS, the building permit inspectors, the Secretary of State
where I filed a partnership, etc. just to get me to go away! They made
me sit for a 4 hour "recorded statement" then claimed they "lost the
tapes" and I must do it again, etc., etc. I have their own letters as
evidence of these facts. Any suggestions? It's a $6000 claim which I
don't consider large enough to interest any decent attorney, but I don't
want them to get away with extortion and fraud. Please suggest how to
make them accountable for their misconduct. ....


Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:15:29 -0500
From: Jim & Paula 
Subject: [Fwd: Mindset]

I just had to forward this. Scary stuff.  But then, Mary Ann Hetreed,
the former Allstate audit manager, says she taught managers about laws
and regulations, and they were always asking questions like "If we can
save a lot of money by breaking the law, and only pay a small fine, why
not do it?"  Ethics is a stranger to the insurance industry.  And of
course, those tiny wrist slap fines of a few hundred or a few thousand
dollars that state departments of insurance give insurers for cheating
millions, are only an Encouragement to do more wrong.  If you could
steal a hundred bucks and only have to give back one, Everyone with the
least bit of moral weakness would be a theif -- and the insurance
industry attracts those with moral weakness.


Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:55:15 -0500
From: Charlie Barone 
Subject: Mindset


A colleague of mine is working for a degree in claims management. His
insurance law class featured a guest lecturer---a supervisor for a
workmans comp carrier. While she outlined her tactics of deny, delay,
and harrass, one of the students questioned the fairness of the
doctrine. She replied, "What do I care if they turn off the electric?
That's what they get for being stupid enough to get hurt on the job."

They're teaching this stuff in schools.


Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:36:11 -0500
To: The Insurer Crime List

Piedad Bernikow's thorough and excellent article on crime by 
the insurance industry is now on the Prairie Law site.  Below is a 
link to Installment 3, which has links to the previously archived 
installments.  Further articles will be forthcoming.  The article is at:

For those of you who are unaware, Piedad Bernikow, J. D., was former
assistant operations manager for Robert Maxwell, the English billionaire.
She was disabled in an auto accident by a State Farm insured.  Naturally, 
State Farm  has played ultimate hardball.  The articles are not about her 
personal case, however -- but are a wide ranging expose of this 
corrupt industry.



From Thu Jan 14 15:20:09 1999
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:42:28 -0500
To: The Insurer Crime Outline 
Subject: Trouble in Texas: The Fraud Called "Tort Reform"

This letter we received needs no explanation.  Soon there will be 
No law or justice for the middle class

Subject: Texas tort law?? 
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:19:28 -0600 
From: "Alan Winograd" 

I apologize for not having written for a long time.  I was too 
depressed after the election results in Texas.  Incredibly, the 60 
minutes special on the corruption of the Texa Supreme Court made 
no difference.  Even though it showed that the justices were taking 
millions in campaign contributions from big business, insurance 
companies, and law firms that represent them, the Republicans 
swept.  Now every justice on the Supreme Court is an ex - 
insurance or corporate defense attorney.  

I say "ex" with a grain of salt as they still vote as if they were still 
defense lawyers.  During the last several years they have ruled in 
favor of defendants on average 70% of the time.  In the process the 
Court has raised the standards for punitive damages so high that it 
is almost impossible to hold these interests accountable for their 
egregious conduct, short of murder.  We no longer have a cause of 
action for gross negligence or bad faith in Texas which had been 
generally accepted tort causes in Texas for the last century.

 Over the last twelve years, under the guise of tort reform, tort 
reform organizations and their allies in the judiciary and legislature 
have erased a substantial portion of our tort law.  Worker's 
compensation law was reformed so that attorney's fees were 
capped at such a low rate that the proponents of the bill knew that 
most injured would not be represented by counsel which is exactly 
what has happened.  

Tort law is meant to hold wrongdoers accountable for their wrongful 
actions.  "Tort" means "wrong".  It is meant to make a wrongdoer 
compensate the victim of his wrongful actions.  When people talk 
of tort reform, all this means is not holding wrongdoers accountable 
for their actions.  

Why is it that those politicians who favor strong criminal laws 
usually favor weak tort laws? It might just have something to do 
with the fact that those interests held liable under tort law have a 
lot of money, power, and influence.  Tort reform does not help the 
burnt oil worker or the crippled truck driver or the small business 
owner.  Tort reform only helps big business, insurance companies, 
banks, and big government because it protects them from 
accountability for their actions.  I cannot imagine Tom Delay voting 
to lighten the punishment for someone caught with an ounce of 
marijuana, but he did vote to allow big tobacco off the hook and to 
protect HMO's from liability.

The reason that so much tort reform is able to pass the argument 
is never stated in terms of how it will weaken a consumer's ability 
to hold a wrongdoer accountable for its wrongful actions.  It is 
always hidden in terms of punishing greedy lawyers filing frivolous 
lawsuits against innocent defendants.  Most personal injury 
attorneys do not file frivolous lawsuits as a matter of economics.  

If I continually fille frivolous lawsuits and lose, I will soon be out of 
business because all personal injury lawyers have to finance the 
lawsuits themselves and only get paid if they win because most of 
our clients are middle class people unable to match funds with an 
Allstate or State Farm.  

The popular misconception that a corporate defendant would rather 
settle than litigate is a complete and utter lie.  There are maybe a 
handful of attorneys that this misconception may apply to.  In the 
vast majority of cases, the corporation budgets millions of dollars 
to litigating cases which to them is a drop in the bucket.  It is a war 
of attrition which is usually won by the party with more money and 

Whenever you hear about so-called tort reform saving your money 
from greedy lawyers, please determine where that message is 
coming from.  If you look closely at the memberships of these tort 
reform organizations, you will see that most are insurance 
companies, big business, manufacturers, builders, CEO's, titans of 
industry and the wealthiest citizens in the country.  Maybe I am 
wrong, but I do not believe that these groups have any interest in 
protecting the average consumer or worker.  

The only group who can and will are the trial lawyers.  The tort 
reformers know this and this is why you have been bombarded with 
messages attacking greedy trial lawyers and tort law.  It is a 
simple equation. The more that the public supports tort reform, the 
more leglislation that will be passed which will mean less power 
individuals will have against big government/business and more 
abuse of power.  At least the government is constrained by the 
constitution, but what constrains abuses by big business?

Keep the Faith,


From Thu Jan 14 15:27:40 1999
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:42:26 -0500
To: The Insurer Crime Outline 
Subject: Talk About Concidence -- It's Worse in New Jersey

We just posted a letter showing how the middle class is about to   lose 
its legal rights in Texas, and another came in from New   Jersey.  This is 
a coordinated national initiative by the insurance   industry to make us 
totally helpless before them, but unfortunately,   no one sees it and no 
one is fighting it -- or will until it is too late. 

Gov Christie stole the real initiative from her opponent and turned it   
around so its effect is opposite.  The voters will be bribed with a   
small reduction in rates (but only for some while other groups like   the 
old and the poor will get raised rates), but they are in for a   mighty 
shock if they are ever in an accident and attempt to fix their   cars or 
get medical treatment, and find there is No legal system or   recourse 
left for them. 

Subject: Allstate Ins.  
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:55:53 -0500  
From: "andrew.graulich"  

Sirs: I am a personal injury attorney in New Jersey. Over the past 5   
years I and others in this field have had to file arbitrations against   
Allstate, obtain awards and more often than not file orders to show   
cause to confirm awards and convert them to judgments before   they pay.  

Most arbitrations entail the completion of depositions of the injured   
party and or their doctor. Rest assured, many doctors who are   good 
doctors won't treat an auto accident victim because of   the hassle they 
can expect from Allstate. Accordingly because   of what this state's 
governor and commissioner of insurance have   done "to eliminate these 
bogus claims and treatment, New Jersey   citizens basically have no right 
to be treated or get proper testing   ("MRI CT Scans... all for a 15% 
promised reduction for maybe 1   year with rights for increases 
thereafter.The insurance company   can underwrite in it's policy 
precertification on any testing or   preclude any testing in it's policy.) 

After you are diagnosed with a disc herniation or radiculopathy you   
might be entitled after initial 12 visits for therapy to 4 more weeks   
but you must then be under the care of the insurance company   doctor. If 
your doctor treats you outside of "protocols set up by the   state" after 
being rejected by the insurance doctor you can file for   arbitration 
where the insurance company can ask for "peer review"   for the testing or 
treatment in dispute.  

This peer review doctor remains "anonymous". Who do you think   will be 
getting these claims to review? If the injured party who   brings an 
arbitration loses, this wonderful state law now imposes   that the injured 
party pay the attorney's fee for the insurance   company, costs for the 
peer review and filing fee for having the   "audacity in attempting to get 
the insurance company to pay for   what the insured paid to get.  

The "peer review is deemed presumptively correct". Do you think   your 
average wage earner can risk losing under this "game"? I think   not! In 
addition we basically have no rights to sue, and are being   provided with 
an option to buy a "bare bones policy" consisting of   $15000.00 PIP 
5000.00 PD and no BI coverage so the person who   already is getting 
"screwed by the insurance company" can drive   "legally in this state".  

This limited coverage covers all passengers!.This goes into effect   March 
1999. Their are many other changes too long to go into to   justify the 
15% rate reduction. If you want your haed to spin   download the New 
Jersey Dept. of Insurance web site to see evil at   work. We as personal 
injury attorneys can only do so much.  

Be advised that Washington is "watching us as guinea pigs" on   this 
wonderful auto reform act. When they are done with Clinton,   next on the 
agenda is "Federal No Fault to be modeled after New Jersey". "They're 
coming; They're here".  

We seek other states help, since if The Insurance Oversight   Commitee 
does not do something then rest assured all other   states are next as the 
evil insurance industry sets out to   create "the land of Oz; you pay 
premiums but by law the   industry is protected from ever having to pay a 
dime in claims".  


Andrew H.Graulich Esq.  
State Of New Jersey  


Insurance Page

Uncivilization and its Discontents

Home Page

Email me, Bill Hammel at
bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: December 8, 1998
Last Updated: May 28, 2000