CASE DIARY
in chronological order with links to appropriate documents.
The format of this HTML version is slightly different from the that which was submitted to the Court. It takes advantage of hyperlink possibilities that cannot exist in the hard copy edition. So relevant referential links are provided at some appropriate points, where inclusion by reference is not indicated in the hardcopy.
The hardcopy is, of course, double spaced, and paginated, while for ease of reading, the HTML version is single spaced.
This complaint, with attachments and exhibits, is long, about 1080 pages when printed out double spaced. The levels of reference is, I think, 3 levels deep. The best way to navigate it is through the OUTLINE provided below. While this file contains the complaint proper, the exhibits, attachments, affidavits and memoranda are each in separate files that are linked to from the outline.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Bryson City Division ____________________________________________ | WILLIAM C. HAMMEL, | ALAN J. BELLAMENTE, | AMENDED et al., | COMPLAINT IN | Plaintiffs | CIVIL ACTION | vs. | | No. 2:99CV-44-T STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE | INSURANCE CO., | Robert Gordon, Asheville Supt., | David Allen Swann, Tina Kelly, | Kimberly King, Erica Thompson, | Charles Allen, Jim Zitney, | Joan Amzler, | and other unknown persons | as employees of | STATE FARM MUTUAL COMPANY; | | | STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, | its employees: Sandra Romei, | Carole Rickelmann, Jane Savastano, | Linda Fernandez-Matthews, | Idiana Murray, Veronica Wade, | Connie Davis, Craig Ovian, | Terri Lauria, Vivian Jones, | Catherine Muoio, Paula Nicolosi, | Sheryl Clougher, Erica Rochow, | Kevin Foth, Cynthia Rodriguez, | Diana Barrera, Gary Fifer, | Kathy Vanbreda, Donna Roff, | Kim Figaro, Lorelle A. Laub, | Anna V. Karasik, Pam Nevin-Lavender, | Lori N. Gee, | and other unknown persons, | as employees of | STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY; | | Eric L. Fremed, MD, and | Drs. Rabin & Fremed, P.C., | Englewood, New Jersey, | | Sharad Wagle, MD and | Psychiatric Associates, | Hackensack, New Jersey, | individually, and as agents, servants,| or employees of | STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, and; | | Melli, Guerin & Melli, P.C, | p.k.a., Melli & Wright P.C. | Paramus, New Jersey | individually, and as attorneys for | STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, and | | any other as yet undiscovered parties | or entities, related to this action, | that may come to light in | subsequent discovery. | | Defendants | | ___________________________________________| SHORT CAPTION: HAMMEL v STATE FARM PLAINTIFFS: WILLIAM C. HAMMEL, PRO SE ALAN J. BELLAMENTE, PRO SE OTHER PARTIES THAT ARE NEITHER PLAINTIFFS NOR DEFENDANTS: Plaintiffs complain also on behalf of other directly or proximately injured entities, which injury or damage arises from Defendants' tortious actions which made necessary certain existing contractual agreements, to insure Plaintiffs' survival. These parties are: The Federal Government of the U. S.; The Social Security Administration of The U. S.; The Government of the State of North Carolina; The Government of the County of Graham, North Carolina; Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Donald A. Walton, of Clermont, Florida; Gerald Steinfeld, of Dumont, New Jersey; Peter N. Boulukos, D.C., of Hackensack, New Jersey; Martin M. Kluger, Ph.D., of Teaneck New Jersey (practice); Mountain Area Information Network, of North Carolina; Plaintiffs' various healthcare givers who may have not been paid, or not paid with interest due them through the systematic pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein; Others whose proper payments were unnecessarily delayed with exactly the same purpose and motive, of which Plaintiffs complain herein; as well as other unknown injured parties that may yet be discovered. These parties are included in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 71. DEFENDANTS, Their Agents, Servants and Employees with REFERENT ABBREVIATIONS: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS hereafter, SFM STATE FARM INDEMNITY CO., BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS hereafter, SFI Linda Fernandez-Matthews hereafter, Matthews Pam Nevin-Lavender, hereafter, Lavender All other named employees of SFI are unambiguously referred to by their last names. All named employees of SFM are unambiguously referred to by their last names. Sharad Wagle, M.D., hereafter, Wagle Eric L. Fremed, M.D., hereafter, Fremed Rabin & Fremed, P.C., hereafter, Rabin Douglas M. Barnett David E. Rehe & Associates, Attorneys at Law Meadows Office Complex 201 Route 17 North, Rutherford NJ 07070 Employees of the Corporate Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Melli, Guerin & Melli, P.C. (Attorneys for State Farm Indemnity) West 115 Century Road, Paramus, NJ 07652 hereafter, Melli Mark Melli of Melli Donna T. Miller of Melli hereafter, Miller Michelle Wall of Melli hereafter, Wall ____________________________________________________________________ OUTLINE I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT paragraphs 1 - 22 II. THE PARTIES & THEIR RELATIONSHIPS paragraphs 23 - 51 III. BACKGROUND & ALLEGATIONS OF FACT paragraphs 52 - 235 IV. JURISDICTION paragraphs 236 - 245 V. VENUE paragraphs 246 - 248 VI. REFERENCE MEMORANDUM ON HOBBS APPLIED TO INSURERS paragraphs 249 - 249 VII. CAUSES OF ACTION paragraphs 250 - 934 A. Fraud 250 - 382 B. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud 383 - 502 C. Mail Fraud 503 - 507 D. Wire Fraud 508 - 512 E. Hobbs 513 - 549 1. robbery 2. extortion 3. conspiracy to commit robbery 4. conspiracy to commit extortion F. Counts of RICO 18 USC 1961 550 - 699 1. 18 USC 1962(a) 5 counts 550 - 608 2. 18 USC 1962(b) 4 counts 609 - 649 3. 18 USC 1962(c) 3 counts 650 - 684 4. 18 USC 1962(d) 3 counts 685 - 699 G. Supplementary Causes of Action in Violation of The Laws of The State of North Carolina 700 - 934 1. bad faith 2. conspiracy to commit bad faith 3. intentional infliction of emotional distress 4. tortious breach of fiduciary duty & conspiracy 5. tortious breach of contract & conspiracy 6. tortious interference with contract & conspiracy 7. tortious abuse of process & conspiracy 8. common law fraud 9. conspiracy to commit common law fraud 10. common law extortion 11. conspiracy to commit common law extortion 12. tortious interference with due process, 13. conspiracy to commit tortious interference with due process, VIII. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES paragraphs 935 - 937 IX. RELIEF SOUGHT paragraphs 938 - 945 X. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT paragraph 946 - 946 XI. PLAINTIFFS' AVERMENT paragraphs 947 - 949 Attachments: 1. Memorandum on State Farm's Misconduct [See separate volume] 2. Memorandum on State Farm Mutual & Subsidiaries 3. Memorandum on Hobbs applied to Insurers 4. Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report & Reviews [See separate volume] 5. Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's review of Plaintiff Hammel's medical reports [See separate volume] 6. Memorandum on Damages and Causality Exhibits: A - NJ DOI Complaint Hammel B - NJ DOI Complaint Bellamente C - NC DOI Complaint Hammel D - Correspondence Byron Baer E - Correspondence Loretta Weinberg F - Esther Benevitz Phone Transcript G - NJ filings Motion and Order to Compel Depositions [PIP release and Stipulations] H - Medical Boulukos letters to Savastano dated March 14 & August 3, 1995 Accompanying Affidavits Expert Mark Colbert Donald Carringer, M.D. [See Fremed Volume] Personal Patricia Buser Accompanying Affirmation William C. Hammel ____________________________________________________________________ I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: 1) This case, regardless of the seemingly endless partial communications of truth by defendants, is quite simple. Plaintiffs bought and relied on SFI insurance, and were both injured, more seriously than anybody knew from the start. SFI terminated benefits because it was profitable to do so, knowing full well that there would be dire consequences of their doing so. 2) Their claims handling practices and ethics are no different from their owner SFM. Both are enterprises of racketeering "profit centers" that regularly defraud their policy holder whenever they feel like it. Claims handling in SFM is itself a vast collection of racketeering schemes where SFM is the invariant and the attorneys and policy holders simply change from scheme to scheme, a scheme in this case being a temporary nexus of connections between SFM and attorneys who will do what they say and prodigal physicians who will have any "expert opinion" that serves the purpose of profit. The attorneys and physicians who engage in these hundreds of thousands of schemes are paid extremely well, at the expense of the injured policy holder who suddenly discovers that he has no insurance. This is exactly the position in which Plaintiffs found themselves. SF owns the stock of all its spawned incorporated companies like SFI, and from a practical internal viewpoint, the SFM company and its spawn behave, in claims handling, as one large racketeering enterprise despite the fact that the spawn have genuine personhood by virtue of their incorporation. 3) In its claims handling SFM and its spawn break State and Federal laws with free abandon, and use all the tactics of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, extortion, robbery, deceit, trickery, and perjury that one would expect of gangsters. 4) In the vast number of schemes to defraud all these policy holders, it saps and garners to itself an even more vast depletion of the entire U.S. economy by leaving people so injured that they cannot work, some with injuries made permanent through SFM's racketeering schemes, but also forcing their policy holders or former policy holders into destitution and disability so that they must be supported by some form of Social Security and Medicaid. Money, as value does not come out of thin air. It is created by the people of the U.S. and they are ultimately paying for what might be tamely called SFM's unjust enrichment. 5) Plaintiffs do not here complain of damages caused by any motor vehicle accident; they complain of a paid for insurance policy in contract with SFI being dealt with through claims handling procedures that are a deliberately contrived mechanism of racketeering that has spread from its institution in SFM to all of it spawn, particularly SFI. 6) As a "friendly fire" can turn into an "unfriendly fire", the "Good Neighbor" has turned into an "Engine of Annihilation", with a deaf ear to any objections, and a clear dedication of purpose. To object in Court is to invite the wrath of a hell with unlimited stolen resources whose object is "to litigate the Plaintiff to death". That may be the exact result here, but Plaintiffs would rather die with their boots on than submit like docile sheep to the slaughter. 7) Plaintiffs' businesses were of an entirely personal nature; they have been destroyed through SFM's and SFI's unlawful activities. Both SFM and SFI have deliberately inflicted physical and psychological damages that are irreversible to the point that Plaintiffs are incapable of living as independent productive human beings. Business damages are also personal damages, and personal damages are also business damages here. 8) SFI and SFM have not only failed with deliberation in their insurance obligations, but have inflicted a thousandfold the damages that should have been covered under the policy, and for which Plaintiffs will hold them accountable. 9) These damages include permanent neurological damages that that leave both Plaintiffs in severe continuous pain that is unstoppable by any means, and that will continue to the point of death. 10) Therefore Plaintiffs seek to be restored to their pre MVA condition in terms of functionality, in compensatory damages no matter what extraordinary means that might take. Further, Plaintiffs seek a punitive award of sufficient argument that what SFM or SFI, or indeed "The State Farm Family" has done here daren't be done again. THE SCHEMES OF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY 11) SFM has many schemes to defraud its policy holders, see for example the Attachments herein. Specifically, a scheme that is most devastating to holders of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) policies, of which Plaintiffs herein complain. 12) Insurance companies, and SFM and its spawn of incorporated subsidiaries in particular, have the ability to deny claims as well as payments to both policy holders and healthcare givers at will, not, in reality, having to give substantive reason, or any reason at all. If they are forced into giving some reason, the expedient partial truth is often used, as Plaintiffs will show. These partial truths are even passed amongst the multitude of people who are alternately and variously engaged in the handling of a claim, or in State Farm's internal language, of "controlling" a claim. 13) Beyond the powers of "delay" and "deny" exercised with impunity is another powerful weapon used against injured policy holders; this is the euphemistically named Independent Medical Examination or IME. As any Plaintiff's attorney knows, these allegedly independent examinations, are often not even really examinations, therefore not medical, and certainly not independent, as Plaintiffs will demonstrate. 14) SFI, as one of the spawn of SFM uses these IMEs as a weapon of war designed to validate an a priori designed denial. Such IMEs have been used against Plaintiffs, and attempted to be used against Plaintiffs in order to deny them medically necessary surgery. The IME physician is paid well for his work, and coached through letters that a claimant never receives, innuendo and blind addenda, post scripts and footnotes so that he knows exactly what is expected of him. Failure on the part of any healthcare giver to return a report that is an excuse for denial of claims often results in endless delays in payment. 15) When an IME was not possible, Defendant SFI resorted to another but weaker form of attack, the "Paper Review" wherein one physician "reviews" the reports of other physicians and comes to the not unsurprising conclusion that the "injuries are not related to the accident". This weapon has been used on both Plaintiffs in a way that would be clearly a sham to any layman. Plaintiffs will expose these shams for what they are. 16) Ultimately, through schemes of fraud and robbery, SFI reduced both Plaintiffs to impending homelessness and destitution, extorting them to bring suit in New Jersey for performance on its PIP obligations. New Jersey has no effective Statutory provision for Plaintiffs to seek redress for SFI's wrongdoings. Prior complaints to the New Jersey Department of Insurance (DOI) produced nothing, and it is only recently that Plaintiffs have discovered that SFI, through its employees told half truths, and sent irrelevant and obfuscatory material to the DOI investigator. 17) With physicians actively engaged in its nexus of schemes of fraud, and robbery, and Plaintiffs extorted into a PIP suit, it would be impossible to have such litigation be profitable to SFI if their attorneys were not also involved. 18) Often, insurers, and SFI in particular will choose a medium sized law firm to represent them in these matters, and make many cases available to this one firm. While an attorney with integrity might balk at presenting to a court, in defense of his client, a document that is a clear fabrication or a known lie, when a medium sized firm earns a large share of its income from an insurer, and in particular from an insurer engaged in defrauding its policyholders such as SFI, one does not bite the hand that feeds, and so acquiesces and also becomes engaged in a racketeering enterprise, conspiring to produce sham evidence together with the insurer and physicians. SFM's cancerous racketeering practices are then injected into the very litigation process itself. 19) This results in tortious breach of fiduciary duty by SFI, tortious interference with Plaintiffs' right to due process, abusive burdening of the Courts, as well as Plaintiffs' attorneys, among other unlawful acts. 20) The above picture is exactly what Plaintiffs have faced and continue to face; Plaintiffs will allege and show the various patterns of racketeering engaged in by the Defendants. 21) Plaintiffs here, include by reference, their "Memorandum On The Racketeering Nature Of The Misconduct of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company" in its entirety. 22) Other cases of extraordinary Bad Faith that have been brought against SFM that reveal the criminal inner workings of that company and its wholly owned incorporated subsidiaries are: Middler v. State Farm, Superior Ct. Calif. County of Los Angelos, NW Dist. No. LC021140 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (Taylor), No. B106120 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 1997) Betty Olson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; No. CIV 96-06105 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.) ____________________________________________________________________ II. THE PARTIES & THEIR RELATIONSHIPS 23) Plaintiffs William C. Hammel and Alan J. Bellamente state that at all times herein during which Plaintiffs allege damages to themselves through the acts and activities of the Defendants: they were business associates engaged several businesses. Plaintiffs were both injured in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) on September 16, 1994. At the time of this MVA, both Plaintiffs were insured by State Farm Indemnity Co. (SFI), and residents of the State of New Jersey. Previously, Plaintiffs had auto insurance under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (SFM), and retained homeowners insurance under SFM at the time of, and after the MVA. 24) Plaintiff Hammel includes here by reference the entirety of his personal affidavit. 25) As a result of this MVA, Plaintiffs became exposed to, and victims of the patterns of racketeering activities engaged in by the Defendants. Plaintiffs have resided in Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina, since February 12, 1996. 26) SFI is an incorporated, wholly owned subsidiary of SFM, both of which were incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. SFI does business in the State of New Jersey. SFM does business in both the State of New Jersey and the State of North Carolina. 27) Jane Savastano, Veronica Wade and Idiana Murray were claim specialists and employees of SFI at the time of the MVA, and for some time thereafter. Sandra Romei was a claims supervisor and employee of SFI during this time. During this time also, Linda Fernandez-Matthews was a claims superintendent and employee of SFI. 28) The firm of Melli Guerin & Wright, P. C. (Melli), is a firm of attorneys who represent SFI in the matters that were before the the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County, brought by Plaintiffs through their attorneys Alan Genitempo of the law firm Piro, Zinna, Cifelli & Paris, and Paul J. Jackson respectively on behalf of Bellamente and Hammel; these actions were filed in September of 1996; these actions are alleged by Defendants SFI and SFM to have been amicably resolved, while Plaintiffs are of a different opinion. Melli still represents SFI in a subsequent Under Insured Motorist (UIM) claim that has yet to be put before an arbitration panel. 29) Donna T. Miller and Michelle Wall are attorneys with the firm of Melli which practices law in Bergen County, New Jersey. 30) Defendant SFI transferred Plaintiffs' claim files to SFM first to Asheville and then to Franklin when Plaintiffs sought refuge in North Carolina without this ever having been requested by either Plaintiff. 31) Jim Zitney is a claim specialist with "State Farm Automobile Insurance Company", at its offices in Franklin, North Carolina. Jim Zitney mailed letters to Plaintiffs, in 1996, further continuing their denials of benefits and spoke with Plaintiffs on the telephone. Jim Zitney, SFM, acted at the direction of Idiana Murray of SFI. In 1996, Jim Zitney issued a "Certification In Opposition To Plaintiff's Application", in the Bergen County, New Jersey Action of Plaintiff Hammel. Jim Zitney (SFM) acted at the direction of Donna Miller of Meli. 32) Sharad Wagle, M.D., is a psychiatrist with Psychiatric Associates of Hackensack New Jersey. He was engaged, on or about June 8, 1995, by Savastano of SFI for an Independent Medical Examination (IME) of Plaintiff Bellamente. Plaintiff Bellamente presented himself for that IME, under instructions from Savastano, on June 28, 1995. Dr. Wagle's report was the reason given for the denial of Plaintiff Bellamente's psychiatric benefits, by SFI. 33) Eric L. Fremed, M.D., is a physician with Rabin & Fremed, P.C., in Englewood, New Jersey. He was engaged, on or about June 8, 1995, by Savastano of SFI for an Independent Medical Examination (IME) of Plaintiff Bellamente. Plaintiff Bellamente presented himself for that IME, under instructions from Savastano, on July 25, 1995. Dr. Fremed's report was the reason given for the denial of Plaintiff Bellamente's neurological benefits, by SFI. "Drs. Rabin and Fremed" was paid for this IME. 34) Dr. Fremed was subsequently engaged by Michelle Wall of Melli to produce three (3) paper reviews of Plaintiff Bellamente's medical records that include medical reports concerning an MVA in 1991 when Bellamente was insured by SFM, and an MVA in 1992 when Bellamente was also insured by SFM. Dr. Fremed was paid by SFI for these reviews. 35) Dr. Fremed was once again engaged by Michelle Wall of Melli to produce a paper review of the medical records of Plaintiff Hammel. Fremed and/or Rabin was paid by SFI for these reviews. 36) Plaintiffs here reference each and every paragraph of the Memorandum on Dr. Fremed, and his reviews as well as each and every paragraph of all Memoranda included therein. 37) On or about January 4, 1996, when Matthews called Plaintiff Hammel, after receiving the Complaints [Exhibits A and B] from Plaintiffs to The New Jersey Department of Insurance (NJ DOI), Matthews had already fabricated a response to the NJ DOI, before she had spoken with either Plaintiff. 38) The New Jersey Department of Insurance in the person of Mr. Robert Only was the recipient of, mendacious, obfuscatory and irrelevant material, as well well as fraudulent mouthings of of good faith by Mr. Harvey Maxey, CPCU, CLU Claim Manager Metro Division, State Farm Indemnity Company, dated February 16, 1996, as a result of Plaintiffs' complaints to the NJ DOI. 39) Mr. Maxey's communication with the NJ DOI was, in fact, fabricated by Matthews and transmitted almost word for word in Maxey's response regarding Plaintiffs' complaints, to the NJ DOI. He states that "Dr. Hammel has advised that Mr. Bellamente will not attend the Independent Medical Examination." 40) On March 14, 1996, Murray spoke with Mr. Only regarding SFI's unilateral transfer of Plaintiffs' claims file to SFM in North Carolina. Plaintiffs never requested or even thought about such a transfer or even considered its possibility. 41) On May 29, 1996 Plaintiffs' knowing very well that they were to suffer the same fate in North Carolina from SFM as they had from SFI in New Jersey, wrote the North Carolina DOI, with complaints, enclosing the denial letters from both SFI and SFM, together with copies of Exhibits A and B. 42) On June 4, 1996, Zitney advised Superintendent Charles Allen (SFM - Asheville) that he spoke with Mr. Timothy Peedin of the NC DOI, who had called to inquire, that Peedin intended to write Plaintiffs denying jurisdiction over this "New Jersey" policy. 43) Letters were received by Plaintiffs dated June 6, 1996 which acknowledged receipt of the complaints. 44) On June 17, 1996, Plaintiffs FAXED to Mr. Peedin a wealth of documentation indicating that SFI's denials were unlawful, and that something was very wrong with the decision of the NJ DOI. 45) On June 25, 1996, Larry L. Wilson, CPCU, CLU, Claim Manager, West North Carolina Division, "STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY", wrote to Mr. Peedin, regurgitating the self serving half-truths that had been originally fabricated by Matthews. 46) On July 3, 1996, Plaintiffs received letters stating what, on June 4, 1996, Jim Zitney had reported he would say. 47) On September 30, 1996, Zitney of SFM in North Carolina wrote to Mr. Robert Only of NJ DOI trying to explain to him that, "State Farm, with the assistance of Intracorp, is in the process of coordinating independent medical examinations for both Mr. Bellemente [sic] and Mr. Hammel." Plaintiffs have yet to understand why an employee of SFM in North Carolina was corresponding with Mr. Only of the NJ DOI. 48) From the previous paragraphs where the DOI's of both NJ and NC are involved, a clear pattern emerges of the lack of corporate formalities between the parent SFM and the subsidiary SFI. 49) Although, legally SFM and SFI are distinct persons by being separately incorporated, their behavior is not consistent with the ostensible legal relationship. 50) Plaintiffs reference here, their Memorandum on The Legal and Real Separateness of the "State Farm Companies". 51) The Departments of Insurance in both New Jersey and North Carolina were unwitting dupes in this action. ____________________________________________________________________ III. BACKGROUND & ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 52) Plaintiffs together held the auto insurance policy X14107-A12-30, policy form 9630 with State Farm Indemnity Company in the State of New Jersey, hereafter, "the policy". 53) Plaintiffs owned, jointly, but not as tenants in common, a 1992 Mercury Grand Marquis automobile, bearing VIN 2MECM75WXNX660755, with valid New Jersey registration plates "WH AB". 54) Both Plaintiffs had been insured by SFM, in the State of New York, beginning sometime in the year 1986, and were changed from having SFM as carrier to having SFI as carrier July 12, 1993, after having moved to New Jersey. 55) On September 16, 1994, at or about 10:00 PM EDST Plaintiffs sustained physical injury as a result of a rear-ending MVA, without fault of Plaintiffs, while turning into the driveway of Bellamente's house. The policy was paid up and in force at that time. 56) Plaintiff Bellamente was driving at the time of the MVA of 1994 and both Plaintiffs were wearing seatbelts as prescribed by the State Laws of New Jersey. 57) At the time of impact of the 1994 MVA, Plaintiff Hammel was adjusting himself in his seat in order to retrieve some papers with his right hand from the rear seat of the automobile. 58) This positioning of Hammel has been consistently documented since the 1994 MVA, yet systematically ignored by defendants with whom he has had connection directly or indirectly. 59) Plaintiff Bellamente was in a previous motor vehicle accident for which he had no liability, on August 6, 1992, from which he had not fully recovered at the time of the accident in 1994. On informing SFI of the 1964 MVA, Savastano advised Bellamente that henceforth all medical treatment was to go under the new claim number 30-3204-312, and that the old claim number, 30-3028-641 was no longer to be used. 60) Plaintiff Bellamente was insured at the time of the 1992 accident by Defendant SFM. Claim Number: 30-3028-641. 61) At the time of the 1992 accident, Plaintiff Bellamente hit his head, was injured by the pressure of the safety harness, had dizziness and nausea. He was taken to Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, NJ. 62) As a result of the 1992 MVA, Plaintiff Bellamente instituted suit against the tortfeasor, and this suit was settled in early 1996. 63) Because of inability to work due to the 1992 accident, Plaintiff Bellamente sold his d/b/a Ultra Videos business to Plaintiff Hammel, and at the time of the 1994 accident had a sole income of commissions due him from the conservatorship of his elderly aunt, and modest income from Ultra Videos since he stayed on as a consultant. 64) Plaintiffs moved to New Jersey in 1989 and continued to purchase SFM insurance there, through SF Agent Charles (Chuck) Sodaro. On April 14, 1993, SFM sent a letter to Plaintiffs stating that they would no longer provide auto insurance in New Jersey, but that automobile insurance would be available with SFI. 65) Plaintiffs accepted the change of insurer from SFM to SFI, relying on previous experience with SFM, and having reasonable expectations of being well insured. 66) The transcript of a telephone conversation of Plaintiff Hammel with Esther Benevitz in [Exhibit F] is referenced here in its entirety. 67) The tortfeasor's insurance company in MVA of 1994 quickly paid the limit of his policy, against which Defendants had already subrogated, after Plaintiffs' surgeries. 68) As a result of the prior MVA of 1992, Plaintiff Bellamente's incapacity to work forced Plaintiff to close two video rental stores, a loss that has never been properly reversed since that was prevented by the Defendants' patterns of racketeering activities. 69) Plaintiff Hammel had never sustained injury from any MVA, and has never claimed injury for such, until the MVA of September 16, 1994. 70) From about 1981, Plaintiff Hammel d/b/a Lex*Data, was a computer consultant, and systems analyst and programmer for law firms specializing in tort law, as well as for Ultra Videos Inc. and continued in this capacity until September 1995, when worsening pain prevented it. 71) Plaintiff Hammel's businesses, i.e., sources of income, before and on September 16, 1994 were a registered d/b/a, known as "Lex*Data", as described in the previous paragraph and a registered d/b/a known as "Ultra Videos". 72) The 1994 MVA caused immediate problems for Plaintiff Bellamente who was taken from the accident by ambulance, to Holy Name Hospital. Plaintiffs believe that at that time no spinal cord injury was diagnosed, and that cervical spasm was noted. The diagnosis was cervical sprain. He declined medications and x-rays, and was released. 73) Plaintiff Hammel followed and retrieved Plaintiff Bellamente from the hospital that night of September 16, 1994, since the automobile was still in drivable condition. 74) After retrieving Plaintiff Bellamente from the hospital, Plaintiff Hammel began experiencing spasm of both his lower back and neck. 75) On the morning of September 17, 1994 Plaintiff Hammel was barely able to get out of bed, because of severe pain and muscle spasms in his back. 76) Both Plaintiffs saw Peter Boulukos, D.C., the morning of September 17, 1994. Dr. Boulukos took X-rays and began treatment for what was considered, at that time, minor injuries. 77) In all of Dr. Boulukos' "attending physician reports", sent to SFI, attribution of injuries of Hammel is made to the MVA of 1994. There were at least seven (7) of these in the period from 10/28/94 to 12/30/94. 78) Dr. Boulukos was in the unique position to know of any trauma to Plaintiff Hammel, since Hammel had previously seen Dr. Boulukos as part of his weight training program. 79) All papers and reports for claim with Defendants were filed with SFI in a timely way. The claim number is 30-3204-312. 80) At the time of the MVA of 1994, Plaintiff Hammel was in excellent physical health and in good physical condition. 81) At the time of the MVA of 1994, Plaintiff Bellamente was still receiving treatment for injuries suffered in an MVA of 1992 where he had no liability, and while he was insured by SFM. 82) Prior to the 1994 MVA, both Plaintiffs were in prospering businesses. The video rental business Ultra Videos had indeed grown much faster than either Plaintiff had calculated and anticipated. The only reason for the decline of Ultra Videos after the MVA of 1994 was the inability to deal with SFI first on communications regarding the wrongful termination of benefits, and then later once the fraud was realized, by contacting and communicating with every political person Plaintiffs thought had the ability to intervene on their behalf. With no results, Plaintiff Hammel finally the wrote, the time and energy consuming, complaints to the NJDICC. This squandering of the businesses' time, energy and money was demanded, for the survival of Plaintiffs, directly, by the racketeering activities of Defendants. 83) On November 7, 1994 Plaintiff Bellamente complained to Dr. Boulukos that his feet were paraesthesic and were flopping. 84) Dr. Boulukos' office notes of that date show "feet seem to be flopping. tripping on steps going up & down." as an observation by Dr. Boulukos, not, a subjective complaint of Plaintiff Bellamente. 85) On November 10, 1994 Plaintiff Bellamente was caused to fall down stairs in his home by his malfunctioning feet which were a result of injuries sustained as a result of the MVA of 1994 as stated in Dr. Boulukos' letter to Savastano dated March 14, 1995, and again in his letter to Savastano dated August 3, 1995. 86) On November 10, 1994 after Plaintiff Bellamente was caused to fall down the stairs, Dr. Boulukos referred him, on an emergency basis, to Dr. Seymour Strum, a neurologist in Teaneck, New Jersey, because Bellamente had suffered head trauma and was suffering hearing impairment. 87) On December 22, 1994 Bellamente, expecting to be evaluated by Dr. Joseph Willner, a neurologist in Englewood, New Jersey, was examined instead by Dr. Willner's associate, Dr. Gary Alweiss. 88) On February 3, 1995 in an interim report to Savastano from Dr. Boulukos, he states, "Mr. Bellamente has been under care in this office for injuries sustained in an automobile accident on September 16, 1994." 89) On February 15, 1995 in accordance with demand from SFI through Savastano, both Plaintiffs presented themselves for IMEs by James F. Linder, P.T., D.C., in Ridgefield, New Jersey. [There seems to be some differences of opinion in various documents as to when this happened; this is the correct date.] On May 3, 1995, Plaintiff Hammel, after receiving another demand from Savastano, presented himself to Dr. Linder for a second IME. 90) On March 10, 1995 Hammel had MRIs of Cervical and Lumbar Spine, and X-rays of Lumbar spine and right shoulder. 91) On June 8, 1995 Bellamente received an IME demand from Savastano that he be examined by Eric L. Fremed, M.D., a neurologist with Drs. Rabin & Fremed, P.C., in Englewood, NJ. The copy of the letter to Dr. Fremed contained blind notes indicating exactly what questions were to be answered. 92) On June 8, 1995 Bellamente received an IME demand from Savastano that he be examined by Sharad Wagle, M.D., a psychiatrist with Psychiatric Associates in Hackensack. A previous erroneous scheduling for Hammel, however contained similar blind notes as were sent to Dr. Fremed. 93) On June 26, 1995, and several times thereafter Hammel, because of worsening shoulder pain, consulted with Peter H. Schmaus, M.D., Paramus, New Jersey, who in his letter dated October 18, 1995 to Idiana Murray at SFI states, "Please be advised that I am a physician having participated in the care of Dr. William Hammel for injuries incurred in a motor vehicle accident on September 16, 1994." 94) On June 28, 1995, Bellamente presented himself, as demanded by SFI through Savastano to Dr. Wagle for examination. 95) On June 28, 1995, Bellamente returned from his IME and called SFI speaking first with Savastano concerning his communication problems with Dr. Wagle, who was from India. His conversation with Savastano was unacceptable, and he then spoke with her supervisor Sandra Romei. In his attempt to explain the difficulties to Romei, she became hostile, terminating the conversation with, "We won't discuss this!". 96) On July 25, 1995, Bellamente presented himself, as demanded by SFI through Savastano to Dr. Fremed for examination. 97) On July 27, 1995 all of Plaintiff Hammel's medical treatment benefits under the PIP coverage of his SFI policy were completely terminated, wrongfully. 98) In July, 1995, it was SFI's institutional policy to terminate benefits to all it's PIP insureds, arbitrarily, by a "report" system which used the last treatment date recommended in IME reports as the "term" date". 99) SFI failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which Hammel's claims were asserted, but instead responded with an intentional falsehood as an excuse for the complete denial of all benefits, although the falsehood was explicit only to chiropractic benefits. 100) On July 27, 1995, Dr. Boulukos was sent a letter by Savastano, telling him that SFI would not pay for any of Bellamente's treatments after November 10, 1994, because those treatments were being considered, by SFI, as related to the fall of that date, which according to SFI was not related to the MVA of September 16, 1994. 101) On July 27, 1995 Bellamente first consulted with Dr. David Adams, a neurologist in Hackensack, New Jersey, to whom he was referred by Dr. Schmaus. Dr. Adams suspected a central rather than a peripheral neurologic problem, but wanted to rule out peripheral neuropathy and any systemic conditions with blood work and and EMG. 102) On July 28, 1995 Bellamente had blood drawn for the tests ordered by Dr. Adams. 103) On July 31, 1995, after three phone calls, Savastano returned Hammel's call. He questioned the complete termination of benefits letter defying the medical IME. Savastano told him not to worry, it was just a formality, and that it didn't mean anything. Hammel relied upon this statement to his detriment. 104) On August 4, 1995 Bellamente presented himself to Seymour Jotkowitz, M.D, a neurologist, for and EMG study requested by Dr. Adams, which revealed "evidence of cervical radiculopathy." 105) On August 4, 1995 Bellamente's blood work report was written, which showed no signs of systemic neuropathy. 106) On August 17, 1995 Bellamente consulted with John F. Pojedinec, M.D, an orthopaedic surgeon in Hackensack, NJ on referral by Dr. Adams. 107) On or about August 17, 1995 Bellamente consulted with Robert C. Rubin, M.D., a neurosurgeon in Hackensack, NJ. 108) Both Drs. Rubin and Pojedinec recommended that Bellamente undergo C5-C6 disectomy and fusion to be performed at Hackensack Hospital as soon as possible. 109) On September 7, 1995, being completely exhausted by having to run businesses while in severe pain, and having to deal with SFI, both Plaintiffs retired to North Carolina for a brief respite before returning for Bellamente's cervical surgery. 110) On September 14, 1995, Plaintiffs returned to N.J., to prepare for Plaintiff Bellamente's impending surgery. 111) On or about September 16, 1995, Plaintiff Bellamente received two letters from Veronica Wade of SFI, one terminating his Psychiatric Benefits, and the other terminating his Neurological benefits, enclosing the IME reports of Wagle and Fremed. It was clear to plaintiffs that SFI had quite literally sought and then used the reports of Wagle and Fremed to terminate Bellamente's psychiatric and neurological benefits, the latter to cause the planned cervical surgery to be cancelled. 112) Upon reading the outrageous reports of Wagle and Fremed, Plaintiffs became instantly aware that there was a deliberate scheme of robbery, deceit and trickery being practiced by Defendant SFI, with the sole purpose being to deny Plaintiffs the personal injury treatment benefits to which they were entitled, in order that Defendant SFI might keep to itself money that it would have had to pay for Plaintiff's necessary medical treatments, i.e., that SFI was implacably set on a course of "Unjust Enrichment" and "Unlawful Profit". 113) In September, 1995, it was SFI's institutional policy to terminate benefits to all it's PIP insureds, arbitrarily, by a "report" system which used the last treatment date recommended in IME reports as the "term" date". 114) SFI failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which Bellamente's claims were asserted, but instead conspired to seek, and then conspired with Wagle and Fremed, for the production of fraudulent IME reports whose sole purpose was an excuse for the wrongful denial of both psychiatric and neurological benefits, although the medical necessity of both as a result of the MVA was clear to SFI. 115) These actions by SFI and its co-conspirators, effectively and wrongfully terminated all of Plaintiff Bellamente's PIP benefits, SFI having sought to eliminate Bellamente's access to his chiropractor by refusing to pay for any treatments by Dr. Boulukos after November 10, 1994, while never informing Plaintiff Bellamente of any such termination of benefits. 116) In the deliberate scheme to defraud and rob, Defendants SFI conspired with other defendants, Melli, Wagle, Psychiatric Associates, Rabin, and Fremed, and specifically targeted Plaintiffs. 117) Plaintiffs relied on the fraudulently sold policy, much to their detriment. 118) Plaintiffs relied, to their detriment, on Savastano's telephone call, which she claimed Plaintiff Hammel's denial letter didn't mean what it said, that it was a formality, and not to worry. 119) On or about a time shortly preceding Plaintiffs' fraudulent denial of PIP benefits, a scheme, at that time unknown to Plaintiffs, there had been instituted by SFI to "deny all claims", thus summarily defrauding policy holders with meritorious claims, Plaintiffs being among these. This scheme was communicated by Matthews to Savastano. 120) The mails were used in furtherance of this scheme. 121) Both phone and FAX were used in furtherance of this scheme. 122) Both Plaintiffs relied, with reasonable expectation, on all the communications by wire and by mail, of their insurer SFI up to a point of time, when the pattern of fraud became recognized incontrovertibly, contradicting Plaintiffs' belief that they were legitimately insured. This prior reliance was to their detriment. 123) Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on the Fraudulent IME of Bellamente by Wagle. 124) Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on the Fraudulent IME of Bellamente by Fremed. 125) From September 14, 1995 on, Plaintiffs businesses began to fail, to the point of their not being able to pay bills. 126) From September 14, 1995 on, Plaintiffs health worsened to the point of scarcely being able to work at all. 127) From the plenary denial of all medical benefits to Plaintiff Hammel on July 27, 1995, Savastano's comment to the contrary notwithstanding, no action was taken on Hammel's claim. No request was made by defendant SFI for a third IME until the request for an IME in a letter from Idiana Murray of Defendant SFI dated September 21, 1995, 52 days later, wherein Hammel was 'asked' to call Dr. Harry Merliss. 128) Plaintiff Hammel did, indeed, call and arrange an appointment with Harry Merliss. Thereafter, he investigated Dr. Merliss' reputation, and found him to be notorious in the medical and legal community for consistently prostituting himself for the insurance industry. 129) Upon obtaining that knowledge, which was consistent from several sources, Plaintiff Hammel cancelled that appointment, and so informed Idiana Murray. 130) Both Plaintiffs declined to be examined by Dr. Merliss, then knowing full well what the conclusions would be. Investigation of Merliss had made it very clear that SFI had decided, in its pattern of fraud, robbery and deceit, that no matter what, they would continue deny Plaintiffs claims. 131) On November 5, 1995, a letter was sent by Plaintiff Hammel to Murray by Certified mail, declining Merliss and demanding that these unlawful denials be stopped. In that letter, Hammel carefully explained how the termination of benefits, given the IME reports, was unlawful. This letter also put SFI on notice that there would be great detriment to both plaintiffs if this unlawful behavior of SFI persisted. At this point, it became absolutely clear that both Plaintiffs were going to be denied no matter what; if State Farm persisted in its patterns and schemes of unlawful activities, those very activities would be the direct and proximate cause of serious further business and physical damages, which would proceed inexorably. 132) On October 18, 1995, Dr. Peter H. Schmaus wrote to Idiana Murray, of Defendant SFI stating that he was treating Plaintiff Hammel for injuries incurred in the MVA of September 16, 1994, and that Hammel needed additional treatments. 133) On October 23, 1995, Dr. Robert C. Rubin wrote to Idiana Murray, employee of Defendant SFI, stating that Plaintiff Bellamente had one and possibly two disc herniations, which he believed were caused by the MVA of September 16, 1994, and requested that SFI authorize treatment for Bellamente. 134) On November 10, 1995, Dr John F. Pojedinec wrote to Idiana Murray, employee of Defendant SFI, refuting Dr. Fremed's IME report of Plaintiff Bellamente, on the basis of objective testing which had been performed, concluding the substance of his letter with, "...this patient's cervical myeloradiculopathy is indeed present, is genuine and is the result of his motor vehicle accident on September 16, 1994." 135) On October 31, 1995, Martin A. Kluger, Ph.D., Plaintiff Bellamente's psychotherapist, wrote to Defendant SFI, refuting the Wagle report, pointing out its inaccuracies, based on his continuing observation and treatment of the Plaintiff. 136) Defendant SFI, persisting in its patterns of racketeering activities, completely ignored the comments of these respected physicians and adamantly refused to reconsider its fraudulent denials. 137) SFI failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which the claims were asserted, but instead adhered to their wrongful denial of benefits. 138) During this period, after SFI's wrongful denials, some of Plaintiffs' healthcare givers continued to treat them, without payment, most particularly Drs. Boulukos, Schmaus and Kluger. 139) Some of the necessary medical treatments needed by Plaintiffs were unavailable to them because of their inability to pay for them. 140) On November 6, 1995, Plaintiff Hammel went to his Internist, Paul S. Sender, M.D. as a result of a sudden onset of heart palpitations while in a state of severe anxiety. An immediate EKG revealed a newly present Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB), whose existence was not present on examination by Dr. Sender for similar symptoms on October 30, 1995. 141) There is no medical explanation possible for the sudden and coincident appearance of the LBBB, except the hormonal chemistry of the intolerable stress level placed directly upon this Plaintiff by Defendants. 142) On or about December 4, 1995 Plaintiff Hammel submitted two complaints to the New Jersey Department of Insurance Consumer Complaints, (NJDICC), one on behalf of Plaintiff Bellamente, and one on behalf of himself. Those are submitted herewith as Exhibits A and B. 143) Exhibits A and B outline, in detail, Plaintiffs' exposure, as it was then known, to the schemes and patterns of fraud and robbery of Defendant SFI. 144) Exhibits A and B were received by NJDICC, assigned case numbers 95-78255 and 95-78257. 145) The investigator for NJDICC on these complaints was Mr. Robert Only. 146) Plaintiff Hammel sent eight (8) fax updates to Mr. Only, who made it clear in a first phone conversation that Plaintiff was not to call him personally. 147) Copies of these complaints were sent to New Jersey State Senator Byron Baer, and to New Jersey Representative Loretta Weinberg, the office of the Governor of New Jersey as well as The Attorney General, and the State Insurance Department of New Jersey, among others. 148) Copies of the complaint exhibits A and B were, on or about January 18, 1996 in Defendants' possession and remain in Defendants' possession. 149) No answer, substantive affirmation or denial of any statement in Exhibits A and B were ever received from Defendants, by Plaintiffs. 150) No answer, substantive affirmation or denial of any statement in Exhibits A and B were ever received from NJDICC, by Plaintiffs. 151) There was never any indication, in the form of a report from NJDICC, ever seen by Plaintiffs, or seen by anyone with whom Plaintiffs have ever had any communication. 152) Plaintiffs now have documents showing that Defendant, SFI forwarded to Mr. Only, medical documents inappropriate to the September 16, 1994 accident, but rather appropriate to the 1992 accident with regard to Plaintiff Bellamente, and dismissed Plaintiff Hammel's claim with half-truths and unfounded conclusory statements. It now appears that Mr. Only did attempt a genuine investigation, but was thwarted by Defendant SFI's continuing pattern of racketeering activities. 153) On or about January 4, 1996, Plaintiff Hammel received a phone call from Linda Matthews who said she was State Farm's Chief claim representative for Eastern New Jersey. She opened with, "I understand you are not satisfied with State Farm's handling of your claims." 154) The conversation with Matthews was pleasant, and Plaintiff Hammel regarded this, finally, as an act of good faith, and later made it clear by FAX to SFI offices that he would only deal with her. The issue most fully discussed was that of State Farm's right to an IME, which neither Plaintiff had ever denied. We agreed upon a suitable neurosurgeon for IME, a Dr. Andronico, for Bellamente. 155) An IME request letter naming Dr. John Andronico arrived, dated January 4, 1996 for Plaintiff Hammel; this is not what was agreed to. Hammel had never been able to see a neurologist or a neurosurgeon of his own choice, and the policy does not provide for arbitrary examinations; it provides for "Independent Medical Examinations", which can hardly be considered truly "Independent", since Defendant SFI, at that time, maintained, as part of its scheme to deny claims and defraud its customers, which was central to its pattern of racketeering activities, a "list of approved physicians" from which it drew physicians to conduct its IMEs, ensuring its desired fraudulent reports, which it could use to deny meritorious claims, in furtherance of its patterns of racketeering activities. 156) An IME request letter naming Dr. John Andronico arrived, dated January 4, 1996 for Plaintiff Bellamente along with IME demands with two other physicians; an Alexander Mittleman, M.D., for an orthopaedic IME, and a David Gallina, for a psychological IME. This was not what was agreed to. The plot was clear: SFI, through its patterns of racketeering activities, would brook no interference in its effort to obtain an excuse for denial continuation. It was only much later, in depositions of Savastano and Murray, that Plaintiffs became aware that Matthews was, in fact, the person who ordered the denials from the beginning. 157) After telephone conversation with Matthews on or about January 18, 1996, Plaintiff Bellamente immediately set upon the task of setting up an appointment with Dr. Andronico, but was declined an appointment by his office staff saying that, "State Farm does not pay it's bills." 158) Since declining IMEs with Dr. Merliss in a letter dated November 2, 1995, no alternative physician had been suggested by Defendants, until Plaintiff Hammel's conversation with Matthews, on or about January 18, 1996 159) Plaintiff Hammel collected all the medical documents indicating substantial injury, need for treatment and logically sound objections to Defendants' continued denial of benefits, and faxed them to Linda Matthews, with a covering letter quoting the response from Dr. Andronico's office regarding IMEs for Defendants. 160) All documents sent to Matthews except the covering letter had been in Defendants' possession for months. 161) No further requests for IMEs have since come from Defendant SFI, although Plaintiff's have recently obtained documents showing that SFI had transferred their file to Defendant SFM, first in Asheville, North Carolina, then to Franklin, North Carolina, where a Jim Zitney hired a "vendor", "Intracorp", to arrange IMEs of the Plaintiffs. According to those documents, the IME's which Jim Zitney's vendor had arranged were hastily cancelled when Plaintiffs attorneys filed PIP suits, on their behalf, in New Jersey. 162) The physical, emotional and financial conditions of both Plaintiffs, coupled with attempts to maintain and also sell the remaining video store business and the exhaustion from writing those two complaints, made it clear that Plaintiffs were in a situation incompatible with life. Plans were made to salvage what could be salvaged and move to the quiet mountains of North Carolina as a desperate attempt to preserve what was left of body, sanity and spirit. 163) The single remaining store continued to founder due to repeated closures because of Plaintiffs' incapacity or appointments for medical treatment. 164) In November, 1995, foreclosure on residence was clearly inescapable. 165) After several attempts to sell the video business, in December, 1995, a bona fide buyer, Kenneth Kiley of Ridgefield Park, offered to purchase it, and was in the process of finalizing his arrangements, while simultaneously being trained in the operation of the business. 166) On or about February 1, 1996, Plaintiffs, in severely deteriorated physical and mental condition, placed all their pending legal matters, including the sale of Ultra Videos to Kenneth Kiley, in the hands of their long time friend, John C. Gavejian, whom Plaintiffs named as their replacement attorney. 167) Plaintiffs informed Mr. Gavejian of their oral agreement with Andreas Michael, of Teaneck, N.J., the landlord of the premises of Ultra Videos, and Kenneth Kiley, wherein Plaintiffs agreed that Mr. Gavejian was to pay back-rent due on the premises to Mr. Michael from the proceeds of the sale. 168) On or about February 9, 1996, knowing of Plaintiffs' conditions, Andreas Michael the landlord of the video store "Ultra Videos" 288 Teaneck Road in Ridgefield Park, N.J., despite his oral agreement with Plaintiffs, had the premises sealed by the Sheriff, for back rent. 169) The rent owed was considerably less than the value of the contents of the store. Plaintiffs were, illegally, forbidden entry and lost valuable personal effects, personal and financial records, as well as the business itself. 170) Plaintiffs liquidated whatever could be liquidated, borrowed money from friends, and moved to Graham County, NC with hope of mental restoration, physical rest and the ability to live more inexpensively and therefore longer. 171) To aid Plaintiffs in relocating, their long time friend, Donald Walton, loaned them approximately $15,000., which plaintiffs have yet to be able to repay. 172) Plaintiffs left New Jersey on February 11, 1996, leaving the the supervision of the last day of loading to a long time friend Thomas Thayer; Plaintiffs arrived in Robbinsville, Graham County, NC on February 12, 1996. 173) On or about November 20, 1995, Mountain Movers of Sylva, North Carolina was hired for the move of Plaintiffs' household items from New Jersey to North Carolina, at a fee of approximately $6,000. Despite receiving a most complete inventory, Mountain Movers failed to move one (1) out of four (4) floors of valuable personal effects. All those items were lost, among them all Plaintiffs' financial records. 174) Fully 75% of what was moved had to be kept in storage for well over one year. 175) When the stored items were finally unpacked, it was discovered that many valuable and irreplaceable items were absent, or damaged. 176) Since, among the items lost was the signed contract for the move from New Jersey to North Carolina, Plaintiff's were unable to recover damages from Mountain Movers. 177) Plaintiff Bellamente was an owner of the house in which both Plaintiffs lived, while Plaintiff Hammel paid rent, he had also contributed approximately $10,000 to the downpayment in purchase of this house, while retaining no ownership under title. This house was foreclosed on and auctioned at Sheriff's sale on April 29, 1996, after the move to North Carolina, 178) On leaving New Jersey, Plaintiffs left the insurance claim, and whatever could be done regarding sale of the video store, and reasoning with Mr. Michael, in the hands of Plaintiffs' attorney at that time John C. Gavejian. 179) For some still unknown reason, Mr. Gavejian did not file a PIP suit, and became uncommunicative and unavailable, and never did file the requisite actions against the tortfeasor Hukkanen or SFI. 180) On or about March 28, 1996, Defendant SFI, through Idiana Murray, conspired with SFM, through Jim Zitney, in furtherance and expansion of its wrongful scheme to defraud and rob Plaintiffs of PIP benefits to which they were rightfully entitled. 181) Defendant SFM's records indicate, quite mendaciously, that the Insureds wanted the claim handled in Franklin. Plaintiff's not only never made such request, they were under the impression that SFI was their insurer, and only did business in New Jersey, and knew of no State Farm offices in Franklin, N.C. 182) On or about April 4, 1996, SFM, through Jim Zitney, agreed to participate in the conspiracy to defraud and rob Plaintiffs, by communicating with Murray "Please fill me in on what I need to know...I guess I'm waiting for your contents." 183) Before or about May 8, 1996, in furtherance of its schemes of fraud and robbery, Idiana Murray of SFI sent to Jim Zitney of SFM, certain medical reports which were related to Plaintiff Bellamente's August 6, 1992 MVA, ostensibly in connection with the September 16, 1994 MVA. 184) On or about May 8, 1996, Jim Zitney of SFM perpetuates the schemes of fraud and robbery by communicating to Idiana Murray of SFI "Per my superintendent, I am awaiting your direction to pay or deny payment for the recently submitted chiropractic bills." 185) On or about May 21, 1996, SFM, through Jim Zitney, acted on the conspiracy between SFI and SFM to continue their schemes of fraud and robbery, by sending, from SFM's Franklin N.C. office, letters, via certified mail, to both Plaintiffs, once again, denying benefits. 186) Both SFI and SFM failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which the claims were asserted, but instead responded with yet another fraudulent denial of benefits, based on their schemes of fraud and robbery. 187) On or about June 20, 1996, SFM through Jim Zitney, made clear that the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs included the Asheville office of SFM, through one David Allen Swann, and that their acts, in furtherance of their fraud and robbery included interfering with the investigation of Plaintiffs complaint against SFI/SFM, to the North Carolina Department of Insurance, of May 29, 1996. 188) On or about August 21, 1996, documents indicate that the subsidiary, SFI, is clearly directing the schemes of fraud and robbery for its parent, SFM, by Sandra Romei of SFI communicating to Jim Zitney of SFM: "At any rate, you wanted some directives as to how you should be proceeding on this file"; "We realize that Mr. Hammel and Mr. Bellamente are difficult to deal with and frequently complain to the Insurance Department"; "The examinations that should be rescheduled are: Allan [sic] Bellamente (remember he fell down the stairs)...William Hammel...Psych is needed if now treating. No exam or term in file." In this same communication, after commenting on the "minor damage to the car", Romei tells Zitney: "I suggest that you ask the current treating physicians how the current treatment is related to this automobile accident. Then you can send their statements to the examining physicians along with the prior reports and car photos in order to obtain an impartial opinion."; "If the doctors agree that the treatment is not related to the motor vehicle accident, we should maintain our original termination dates."; and finally, "Aside from the above, we suggest that you use good claim handling practices to control this claim." 189) In paragraph 188) above, note that Zitney had already sent denial letters to both plaintiffs, clearly demonstrating that SFM failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which the claims were asserted, but instead responded with yet another wrongful denial of benefits, based on their schemes of fraud and robbery. 190) On or about the 25th of May, 1996, response from the New Jersey Department of Insurance was received by Plaintiffs. That response amounted to a reiteration of State Farm's litany of fraudulent excuses for denying Plaintiff Bellamente's claims while ignoring Plaintiff Hammel's situation completely. 191) On or about May 29, 1996, Senator Byron Baer also sent a copy of the "disappointing response" he had received from Insurance Commissioner, Elizabeth Randall to Plaintiff Hammel, noting in his letter that Randall's letter "does not address your personal claim." (See Exhibit D) 192) In further correspondence with Senator Baer, the Senator agreed that this was not, in fact, a report. (See Exhibit D) 193) On May 29, 1996, Plaintiff Hammel filed a complaint against both Defendants SFI and SFM with James E. Long, Commissioner of Insurance of the State of North Carolina, clearly demonstrating the fraud and tortious breach of contract as well as indicating schemes of fraud and robbery by defendants SFI and SFM in the State of North Carolina. 194) As the statute of limitations was approaching, Plaintiffs had to find a new attorney, and eventually did so through N.J. ATLA: Paul Jackson, Esq. for Plaintiff Hammel, and, through Mr. Jackson, Alan Genitempo, Esq. for Plaintiff Bellamente, who currently are handling the PIP and UIM cases in N.J.. 195) Though the trip was physically arduous, stressful and expensive, there was no choice but that we meet with Mr. Jackson in New Jersey. 196) It was clear that both Plaintiffs had to find a good neurosurgeon, and searched out Dr. Michael M. Haglund, who had been identified indirectly through Dr. David J. Adams as a very good neurosurgeon, and neurologist. Plaintiffs sought one specifically in North Carolina, and one at Duke University Medical Center because of its reputation for excellence. 197) In order to conserve Plaintiffs' energy and finances as much as possible, Plaintiffs arranged to see Dr. Haglund at DUMC, on the way back to North Carolina, after having met with Mr. Jackson, on August 22, 1996. 198) Plaintiffs saw Dr. Haglund, at the Duke University Medical Center Private Diagnostic Surgical Clinic on August 26, 1996. At that evaluation, Dr. Haglund recommended that Plaintiff Hammel undergo surgery for decompression of his cervical spinal cord as soon as possible, and that Plaintiff Bellamente undergo disectomy and fusion only after Plaintiff Hammel had recovered, since Hammel's condition was more precarious than Bellamente's, at that time. 199) At the evaluation of August 26, 1996, Plaintiff Hammel's surgery was scheduled for September 18, 1996, but had to be postponed a week, to September 25, 1996 because of a hurricane. 200) On or about August 29, 1996, Hammel's action against SFI was filed in Bergen County, New Jersey. 201) On September 3, 1996, Bellamente's action against SFI as "State Farm Insurance Company" was filed in Bergen County, New Jersey. 202) On August 6, 1998, almost three years later, and more than two years after SFI conspired with SFM in furtherance and expansion of its scheme to defraud Plaintiffs by their patterns of racketeering activities, and SFM had acted on that conspiracy, to continue SFI's fraudulent denials, Plaintiff Bellamente's attorney received a letter from Donna Miller of Melli, who had originally announced that Melli was engaged to represent "Defendant State Farm Insurance Company", telling Plaintiff's attorney that the proper party to have been named was "State Farm Indemnity Company". 203) Although Plaintiffs were both assured by various people, one of whom was Joanne Johnson, of DUMC's billing department, that given the seriousness of the surgery and Dr. Haglund's reputation, Defendants would surely agree to the surgery, Defendants SFI, through Idiana Murray, and SFM, through Jim Zitney, stood, recklessly, on their unwarranted denial again saying, "the case is closed", in continuation of their patterns of racketeering activities. Plaintiffs arrived on September 24, 1996 at DUMC prepared for Plaintiff Hammel's surgery, only to be told of Defendants' continuing and fraudulent denial of clearly necessary medical treatment. 204) Both SFI and SFM failed, fairly, to investigate the basis upon which the claims were asserted, but instead responded with yet another wrongful denial of benefits, based on their schemes of fraud and robbery. 205) Both Plaintiffs applied for SSI benefits because of their disabilities on or about May 9, 1996. Plaintiff Bellamente received certification on or about July 8, 1996; Plaintiff Hammel received SSI certification on or about January 12, 1997. Both certifications were retroactive to the date on which Plaintiffs' bank balance dropped below $1,000.00. 206) Plaintiffs' surgeries were rescheduled under Medicaid: Plaintiff Hammel's on May 13, 1997, and Plaintiff Bellamente's on June 24, 1997. Both procedures were performed by Dr. Michael M. Haglund, on those dates. 207) On or about November 6, 1996, Paul J. Jackson, attorney for Plaintiff Hammel in the New Jersey actions, filed an Order to Show Cause on behalf of Plaintiff in an attempt to get him the necessary surgery. 208) On December 3, 1996, acting on advice of Defendant SFI's attorney, Donna Miller, Jim Zitney of SFM, in Franklin, N.C., signed and returned to Miller a Certification in Opposition to Plaintiff's Application, written and transmitted to him by Donna Miller. 209) This "Certification", carefully and artfully crafted by Donna Miller, for Mr. Zitney's signature, and which he signed, omitted significant details and information which were in the possession of Miller at the time she crafted the document. Mr. Zitney's Certification was presented to the Court in New Jersey, in furtherance of SFI's and SFM's, now coordinated, racketeering activities. According to Mr. Zitney's notes, he was obviously troubled by the final clause, which reads "I am subject to punishment." 210) Plaintiffs were required to travel to New Jersey for Defendants' depositions of Plaintiffs which took place regarding the PIP and UIM matters, on February 25, 1998, from 2:00 PM to 8:00 PM. 211) While in New Jersey, for those depositions, both Plaintiffs were thoroughly examined, at Plaintiffs' own expense, by Dr. David Adams. Dr. Adams confirmed Dr. Haglund's diagnosis of atrophied spinal cord of Plaintiff Hammel, and suggested that the the drug Neurontin (gabapentin) might be useful for relief of some of the various bodily pain and dysesthesias which originate from the atrophied cord. It has been partially effective and is a presrcritible substance that will be required by Plaintiff Hammel, for the rest of his life. 212) While in New Jersey for depositions, Plaintiff Hammel was also thoroughly examined, at Plaintiff's own expense, by Dr. Gilbert Kepecs, Rheumatologist, concerning Plaintiff's Right Shoulder. Dr. Kepecs confirmed the continued existence of inflammation of Plaintiff Hammel's Right Shoulder which had gone untreated since Defendant's initial denial of all medical benefits. In spite of several courses of physical therapy since, range of motion and pain of the Right Shoulder has not improved enduringly. 213) On return to North Carolina from Depositions in New Jersey, Plaintiff Hammel had to have his rectum and lower colon manually disimpacted at Harris regional Hospital, because effects of damage to the cervical spinal cord have compromised every body part and function at, and below, the level of the cervical cord atrophy. 214) Defendant SFI continually thwarted Plaintiffs' attorneys in their attempts to take depositions of certain SFI employees, to the extent that Plaintiff's attorneys had to file an Order Compelling Depositions of SFI's employees. 215) Romei's deposition was cancelled many times, and she is a key person in maintaining Defendants' fraudulent denial of Plaintiffs' claims. Romei never was produced by SFI for deposition. 216) Defendant SFI continually thwarted Plaintiffs' attorneys in their attempts to obtain documents and reports, under the Rules of Discovery, to the point of not providing certain documents until the very day of the Court Ordered depositions of SFI's employees. 217) On July 15, 1998, Defendant SFI, by providing, literally, reams of documents just one half hour prior to the scheduled depositions, all of which should have been provided to Plaintiffs' attorneys previously, materially interfered with Plaintiffs' attorney's abilities to conduct as thorough a deposition as would have been possible had those Plaintiffs' attorneys had the documents according to the Rules of Discovery. 218) On November 13, 1998 Donna Miller of Melli received notice dated November 11, 1998, from Jackie Chadwick of SFI, that "We have received authority to settle this suit [PIP]; kindly solicit an offer from plaintiffs' counsel and advise." 219) On November 19, 1998, Wall, of Melli, wrote to Plaintiff's attorneys, announcing that she was replacing Donna Miller in the matters, and requesting that the attorneys: "provide me with settlement demands so that we can begin discussions toward resolving these matters." 220) On January 5, 1999, Defendant Eric L. Fremed, M.D. wrote a "Paper Review" of selected documents, provided to him by Defendant Melli, through Wall, of Plaintiff Bellamente, and sent it to Wall. At some time unknown to Plaintiffs this review was sent to both Plaintiffs' attorneys. 221) On March 31, 1999, Defendant SFI issued checks to the Department of Medical Assistance, in North Carolina, covering that part of Plaintiff's treatments which the Department, at that time, wished reimbursed. 222) On April 14, 1999, Defendant SFI issued checks to some of those of Plaintiffs' healthcare givers whom it had previously refused to pay. 223) On April 23, 1999, Wall sent checks and explanations of benefits for Plaintiffs' healthcare givers, to Plaintiffs attorneys, for distribution to those healthcare givers. 224) On or about May 8, 1999, Plaintiff Bellamente's chronic lumbar pain, from which he has suffered since the MVA of September 16, 1994, became acute. 225) On May 17, 1999, Plaintiff Hammel signed a release in the PIP action in New Jersey. 226) Since May 17, 1999, when Plaintiff Hammel signed a release in the PIP action in New Jersey, which calls for payment of out of pocket expenses, no such payments have been paid though the appropriate bills were submitted long ago; several of them have been submitted repeatedly and have been ignored. 227) On or about June 4, 1999, despite as much bed rest as practicable, Plaintiff Bellamente's lumbar problem worsened severely, and at the earliest possible time, June 7, 1999, he sought treatment. After ruling out epidydimitis, an MRI was prescribed. 228) On June 12, 1999 an MRI of Bellamente's lumbar spine was made which revealed a herniated disc at L1-2. That MRI was immediately forwarded to Dr. Haglund at Duke University Medical Center, since Dr Haglund was out of the country, surgery was scheduled for August 17, 1999, the first available time. 229) On June 14, 1999, Defendant Eric L. Fremed, M.D. wrote another "Paper Review" of selected documents, provided to him by Defendant Melli, through Wall, of Plaintiff Bellamente, and sent it to Wall. This review was sent on June 29, 1999, to both Plaintiffs' attorneys to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories and specifying Fremed as an "expert witness" to testify on his review at the time of the UIM arbitration. This amendment was claimed not be an adoptive admission. It was also sent to the UIM Panel members with no claim that it was "not to be deemed an adoptive admission", and is therefore submitting the review to the panel as true. On December 23, 1999, Dr. Fremed submitted yet a third paper review on Plaintiff Bellamente. 230) On June 21, 1999, Plaintiff Bellamente signed a release in the PIP action in New Jersey. 231) On June 30, 1999, Defendant Eric L. Fremed, M.D. wrote a "Paper Review" of selected documents, provided to him by Defendant Melli, through Wall, of Plaintiff Hammel, and sent it to Wall. 232) On or about August 2, 1999, Defendant Melli, through Wall, submitted Defendant Fremed's Review of Plaintiff Hammel to the UIM arbitration panel, in N.J., and to both Plaintiffs' attorneys to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories and specifying Fremed as an "expert witness" to testify on his review at the time of the UIM arbitration. This amendment was claimed not be an adoptive admission. It was also sent to the UIM Panel members with no claim that it was "not to be deemed an adoptive admission", and is therefore submitting the review to the panel as true. 233) On August 17, 1999, Plaintiff Bellamente underwent surgery at DUMC, performed by Dr. Michael M. Haglund, for a hemidisectomy. 234) On October 4, 1999, Plaintiff Hammel was diagnosed by Daniel M. Eichenbaum, M.D. as having "Toxic Cataracts" and surgery for removal of the more serious cataract was scheduled for October 27, 1999. Cataracts are a known possible side effect of Neurontin. 235) a. In or about Mid-October, 1999, Plaintiff Bellamente again developed acute symptoms associated with the L1-L2 disc. Dr. Haglund's Nurse Clinician, Sara Williams, arranged for Bellamente to have an MRI done at District Memorial Hospital in Andrews, N.C., and to have that MRI sent to Dr. Haglund, at Duke. That MRI revealed additional disc material having extruded from L1-L2, and surgery for its removal was to be scheduled as soon as Dr. Haglund's schedule permitted. b. On October 27, 1999, Plaintiff Hammel underwent the first surgery for toxic cataracts at Murphy Medical Center, Murphy, N.C.; surgery was performed by Dr. Eichenbaum, who replaced the natural lens of the right eye with a specially designed plastic lens. A similar surgery will be necessary in the near future for left eye. ____________________________________________________________________ IV. JURISDICTION 236) Plaintiffs aver on information and belief, and upon reasonable investigation and research that Federal RICO laws 18 USC 1961-1968 do not frustrate the goals of any laws regulating insurance in either the States of North Carolina or of New Jersey, and further that The Western District Federal Court of The State of North Carolina has jurisdiction in this matter by Federal Statute and by Diversity: 237) Federal District court has jurisdiction over federal questions, and by statute over a. 18 USC 1962(a)-(d) b. 18 USC 1964(c) c. 18 USC 1951 under 18 USC 1964(a), and also under d. 28 USC 1331 e. 28 USC 1339 238) There is Diversity of Citizenship, 28 USC Sec. 1332, regarding the tortious actions alleged and violations of 18 USC 1962 (RICO), and 18 USC 1951 (Hobbs) by Defendants, since continuity of these actions spans a time when Plaintiffs lived in the State Of New Jersey until February 1996, and thereafter in the State of North Carolina to the present time. 239) a. There is a diversity of citizenship since the Defendants Fremed, Rabin, Wagle, Psychiatric Associates, and Melli are residents of New Jersey, while their actions in the State Of New Jersey have interfered tortiously with the finances and health of Plaintiffs who are residents of the State of North Carolina. b. SFI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SFM, and SFM does business in many States of the United States; the home offices of SFM are in the State of Illinois, of which it is also a citizen, while SFI, upon information, belief and reasonable investigation is licensed by the State of New Jersey, and the State of Illinois to do business within those, and possibly other States, and that it does business only or primarily within the State of New Jersey. 240) The Parent company, State Farm Mutual does business in the State of North Carolina and has representatives in The Western District of North Carolina. On information and belief, State Farm Mutual is a Foreign Corporation doing business in the State Of North Carolina; and further that other incorporated entities bearing the name "State Farm" are incorporated subsidiaries wholy owned by State Farm Mutual and are therefore controlled by State Farm Mutual, and that the policies of claim handling in these entities are the dictates of State Farm Mutual. This is based on information available in Best's. 241) Based on the preceding, the allegations contained herein constitute a matter which affects Interstate Commerce, and also presents a condition of "diversity of citizenship"; the matter, therefore, falls within Federal Jurisdiction. 242) Although there does exist a RICO provision in the North Carolina General Statutes, GS 75D 1-14, which appears to be an elaboration of 18 USC 1962, and explicitly prohibits the prohibited acts of 18 USC 1962, Plaintiffs cannot find such a cognate provision in the State of New Jersey. From these circumstances and further supporting documentation, it is the conclusion of Plaintiffs that their appropriate pleadings would be unwelcome in the State Courts of both New Jersey and of North Carolina. All the preceding leaves the pursuit of justice possible only within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Western District Court of North Carolina. 243) Plaintiffs avail themselves of the law of the State of North Carolina. 244) The Federal Law of the preceding paragraph is not in any "direct conflict" with any laws of the States of New Jersey or North Carolina, and specifically it does not "invalidate, impair, or supersede" any laws of these States which regulate insurance. U.S. Sup. Ct. Humana v. Forsyth, Certiorari, for 9th Cir. No. 97-303. 245) The amount in controversy well exceeds the statutory sum of $75,000. ____________________________________________________________________ V. VENUE The Western District Federal Court of North Carolina is the only appropriate venue in this matter: 246) Plaintiffs reside, and have resided in Graham County, North Carolina for almost four (4) years; Graham County lies within the Federal Western District of North Carolina. Venue regarding regarding all Defendants is then pursuant to 18 USC 1965. 247) The Parent company, SFM does business in the State of North Carolina and has representatives in The Western District of North Carolina. Plaintiffs rely on 28 USC 1381(a)(2), 28 USC 1381(b)(3) and 28 USC 1381(c). 248) Any change of venue to a different district, for whatever reason, would cause such economic hardship, physical distress and possible physical injury to plaintiffs so that this case could not be litigated, and would negate, utterly, the ends of justice. This is not a matter of convenience. ____________________________________________________________________ VI. REFERENCE MEMORANDUM ON HOBBS APPLIED TO INSURERS 249) Plaintiffs here reference their Memorandum on the Extortion Scheme and the Hobbs' Act, as attached to this complaint. ____________________________________________________________________ VII. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of FRAUD) 250) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 52, 54, 64-66, 117. 251) Defendant SFI has dealt unconscionably with Plaintiff Bellamente in its unconscientious use of its power arising out of its own relative position of superiority and resulting in an unconscionable bargain that is the policy. 252) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed fraud. 253) This primary fraud which has also lead to other torts through which all Plaintiff Bellamente has been damaged in his business property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 254) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 255) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of FRAUD) 256) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 52, 54, 64-66, 117. 257) Defendant SFI has dealt unconscionably with Plaintiff Hammel in its unconscientious use of its power arising out of its own relative position of superiority and resulting in an unconscionable bargain that is the policy. 258) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed fraud. 259) This primary fraud which has also lead to other torts through which all, Plaintiff Hammel has been damaged in his business property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 260) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 261) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of FRAUD IN FACT) 262) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 97 and 98. 263) Defendant SFI through its employee Savastano sent a termination letter to Plaintiff Hammel Dated July 27, 1995 denying all medical benefits, misrepresenting a second IME report by saying that "in the doctor's opinion, no further treatment was necessary." When, in fact, no thing was said, nor could such a conclusion be drawn. The report, in fact, suggested further treatment. 264) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a fraud in fact, by eliminating and denying necessary medical treatment that was, in fact, never allowed by SFI, and which has lead to permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 265) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 266) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of FRAUD) 267) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 98, 99 103, 118. 268) Defendant SFI through its employee Savastano denied that the termination letter to Plaintiff Hammel Dated July 27, 1995 had any significance, and that there was cause for worry, "that it did not mean what it says" and "was a formality". 269) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a fraud, upon which Plaintiff Hammel relied to his detriment by deferring necessary medical treatment that was, in fact, never allowed by SFI, and which has lead to permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 270) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 271) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 272) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 92, 95 111-115. 273) Defendant SFI through its employee Savastano sent to Plaintiff Bellamente, through the mails, on June 8, 1995, a demand for a psychiatric IME with a Dr. Sharad Wagle, presenting this demand as an Independent Medical Examination, and "Second Opinion" while knowing that a fraudulent "examination" was to be performed, and that the resulting report would be used as an excuse to terminate Bellamente's psychiatric benefits. 274) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a fraud, upon which Plaintiff Bellamente relied, by attending the IME, to his detriment by providing SFI with the fraudulent excuse it wanted to terminate Plaintiff's psychological benefits, and which has directly caused permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 275) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 276) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 277) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 92, 95 111-115. 278) Defendant SFI through its employee Savastano sent to Plaintiff Bellamente, through the mails, on June 8, 1995, a demand for a neurological IME with a Dr. Eric L. Fremed, presenting this demand as an Independent Medical Examination, and "Second Opinion" while knowing that a fraudulent "examination" was to be performed, and that the resulting report would be used as an excuse to terminate Bellamente's neurologic benefits. 279) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a fraud, upon which Plaintiff Bellamente relied to his detriment by being forced into deferring necessary medical treatment for damages caused by the MVA that was, in fact, never allowed by SFI, and which has directly caused permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 280) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 281) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Wagle and Psychiatric Associates, for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 282) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 92, 95 111-115, 123, 135. 283) Defendant Wagle presented to SFI as a valid and professionally competent IME, his report, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and also knowing the use to which it would be put. 284) In so doing, Defendants Wagle and Psychiatric Associates have committed a malicious fraud, upon which Plaintiff Bellamente relied to his detriment by deferring necessary medical treatment that was, in fact, never allowed by SFI, and which has lead to permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 285) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 286) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants Wagle, and Psychiatric associates for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Fremed and Rabin for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 287) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 92, 95 111-115. 288) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegements. 289) Defendant Fremed presented to SFI as a valid and professionally competent IME, his report, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and also knowing the use to which it would be put. 290) In so doing, Defendants Fremed, and Rabin have committed a malicious fraud, upon which Plaintiff Bellamente relied to his detriment by deferring necessary medical treatment that was, in fact, never allowed by SFI, and which has lead to permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 291) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants Fremed, and Rabin have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 292) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants Fremed, and Rabin for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Fremed and Rabin for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 293) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 220. 294) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 295) In a Paper Review dated January 5, 1999, Defendant Fremed presented to SFI, through it attorney Wall of Melli as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review which was based primarily on his prior fraudulent IME report, and summarily dismissing the opinions and knowledge of all treating healthcare givers, while knowing that it was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 296) In so doing, Defendants Fremed, and Rabin have committed a malicious fraud in fact, with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 297) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants Fremed and Rabin have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 298) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants Fremed and Rabin for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 299) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 220. 300) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 301) The Paper Review dated January 5, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was presented by SFI through its attorneys Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 302) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 303) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 304) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 305) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 220. 306) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 307) The Paper Review dated January 5, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was by Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing and not making reasonable investigation, that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 308) In so doing, Defendant Melli has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 309) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 310) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Fremed and Rabin for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 311) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 312) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 313) In a Paper Review dated June 14, 1999, Defendant Fremed presented to SFI, through it attorney Wall of Melli as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review which was based primarily on his prior fraudulent IME report, and summarily dismissing the opinions and knowledge of all treating healthcare givers, while knowing that it was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 314) In so doing, Defendants Fremed and Rabin have committed a malicious fraud in fact, with knowledge and intent, violating foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 315) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants Fremed and Rabin have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 316) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants Fremed and Rabin for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 317) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 318) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 319) The Paper Review dated June 14, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was presented by SFI through its attorneys Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 320) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, property and person as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 321) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 322) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 323) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 324) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 325) The Paper Review dated June 14, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was presented by Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing and not making reasonable investigation, that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 326) In so doing, Defendant Melli has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 327) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 328) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Fremed and Rabin for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 329) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 330) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 331) In a Paper Review dated December 23, 1999, Defendant Fremed presented to SFI, through it attorney Wall of Melli as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review which was based primarily on his prior fraudulent IME report, and summarily dismissing the opinions and knowledge of all treating healthcare givers, while knowing that it was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 332) In so doing, Defendants Fremed and Rabin have committed a malicious fraud in fact, with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 333) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants Fremed and Rabin have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 334) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants Fremed and Rabin for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 335) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 336) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 337) The Paper Review dated December 23, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was presented by SFI through its attorneys Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 338) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 339) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 340) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 341) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 229. 342) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 343) The Paper Review dated December 23, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was by Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing and not making reasonable investigation, that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 344) In so doing, Defendant Melli has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Bellamente in order to slander Plaintiff Bellamente's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 345) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 346) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Fremed and Rabin for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 347) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 232. 348) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 349) In a Paper Review of Plaintiff Hammel's medical records, dated June 30, 1999, Defendant Fremed presented to SFI, through it attorney Wall of Melli as valid and professionally competent, summarily dismissing the opinions and knowledge of all treating healthcare givers, while knowing that it was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 350) In so doing, Defendants Fremed and Rabin have committed a malicious fraud in fact, with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section SFI for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 353) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 232. 354) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 355) The Paper Review of of Plaintiff Hammel's medical records dated June 30, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was presented by SFI through its attorneys Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 356) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 358) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 359) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 232. 360) Plaintiffs refer to their Memorandum on Dr. Fremed's Report and Reviews [Attachment 4] as Supplementary Allegations. 361) The Paper Review dated June 30, 1999, written by Defendant Fremed, and requested by Wall of Melli was by Melli to both Plaintiffs' attorneys, to amend Defendant's answers to interrogatories as valid and professionally competent, a Paper Review, while knowing and not making reasonable investigation, that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. The Review was submitted to the UIM arbitration panel. 362) In so doing, Defendant Melli has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint and which is included here by reference in each and every one of its paragraphs. 363) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 364) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM through its employee Jim Zitney, for the intentional tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 365) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 207, 208, 209. 366) On December 3, 1996, Jim Zitney, a claims specialist for SFM knowingly delivered to Miller of Melli, a misleading "Certification", whose purpose was to oppose an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff Hammel's cervical surgery for a compressed spinal cord should not be allowed, on Motion by Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Paul J. Jackson. 367) Mr. Zitney knew what the purpose of the Certification was and omitted knowledge that was in his possession, and that would have weakened his certification. 368) In so doing, Defendant SFM has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 370) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, through its employees Matthews, Romei, Savastano, Murray and Wade, for the tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 371) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 372) On or before December 3, 1996, the named employees in some combination sought fraudulently through SFI's attorneys Melli, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, to prevent Plaintiff Hammel's medically necessary surgery necessitated by the MVA of September 16, 1994. This was done by fraudulently opposing an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff Hammel's cervical surgery for a compressed spinal cord should not be allowed, on Motion by Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Paul J. Jackson. 373) SFI through its agents servants and employees had clear knowledge that there was damage, and that it originated from the MVA. 374) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 376) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for the tort of MALICIOUS FRAUD) 377) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 207, 208, 209. 378) On December 3, 1996, Miller of Melli, composed a Certification in Opposition to Plaintiff's Application, having knowledge of Plaintiff Hammel's physical damage, as well as a clear line of attributions from treating physicians. Miller wrote this misleading "Certification", whose purpose was to oppose an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff Hammel's cervical surgery for a compressed spinal cord should not be allowed, on Motion by Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Paul J. Jackson. 379) With this knowledge, the fact omitted from the Certification was what the surgery was for, and that the order for immediate surgery came from Michael M. Haglund, Ph.D., M.D. a neurosurgeon at Duke University Medical Center, Miller, attorney for SFI, created and put this instrument of fraud into the hands of Jim Zitney, for signature and return, for the purpose of defrauding the Superior Court of New Jersey in order to defraud Plaintiff Hammel on behalf of SFI, and so to injure his spinal cord. 380) In so doing, Defendant Melli has committed a malicious fraud in fact with knowledge and intent, foisting intentional misrepresentations upon the Court, and upon Plaintiff Hammel in order to slander Plaintiff Hammel's meritorious claims under the policy, and to deny their merit, and so to deny Plaintiff's claims, in the scheme to defraud; SFI intended that the medically necessary surgery not take place, having done this with callous disregard for the harm that was being done to Plaintiff, causing damage to his business, person and property, as set forth in section Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 382) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI and SFM for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 383) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 54, 64 and 65. 384) On or about July 12, 1993, Defendant SFM through its subsidiary SFI, conspired to sell Plaintiffs a policy of automobile insurance which Defendants had no intention of honoring, and upon which Plaintiffs relied. 385) On or about May 1, 1995, Defendant SFI through various of its employees began a continuing conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs of benefits for which they had paid under that policy. 386) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 387) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs have sustained permanent damages to their business, property and person as set forth in section SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 389) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Savastano, Matthews, and Romei for the tort of ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 390) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 89. 391) On or about January 24, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei and Matthews, attempted to enter into a conspiracy with Dr. James Linder, in their fraudulent scheme to terminate Plaintiff Hammel's medical benefits by obtaining an IME which they could use for that purpose. 392) Defendant, through the named employees, attempted to influence Dr. Linder's report by sending him information appropriate to their interest in controlling this claim, but wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff Hammel's medical condition, if this were a truly independent examination. For example, the amount that was paid for repair to the car, as well as other presently unknown data. 393) On or about April 28, 1995, Savastano of SFI sent Plaintiff Hammel a letter ordering a second IME with Dr. Linder, which Plaintiff attended on May 3, 1995. 394) It is clear from Dr. Linder's IME reports of February 16, 1995 and of May 3, 1995, that Dr. Linder did not agree to participate in Defendant's conspiracy, since in the former he attributes Hammel's injuries to the MVA of September 16, 1994, and in the latter, he recommends additional treatment as well as an orthopedic consult. 395) In neither report does Dr. Linder say, or even intimate, that Plaintiff Hammel needs no further treatment. 396) This branch of the conspiracy to terminate Plaintiff Hammel's medical benefits failed to achieve its goal. 397) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed Attempted Conspiracy to commit fraud. 398) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Hammel has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 400) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Savastano, Romei, and Matthews for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 401) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 89 and 97 - 99. 402) On or about January 24, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei and Matthews, began a continuing conspiracy to terminate Plaintiff Hammel's medical benefits by obtaining an IME which they could use for that purpose. 403) On or about January 25, 1995, Plaintiff Hammel received a letter from SFI through Savastano, demanding an IME with Dr. James F. Linder, which Plaintiff attended on February 15, 1995. 404) In his report of that IME, dated February 16,1995, to Savastano of SFI, Dr Linder attributes Plaintiff Hammel's injuries to the MVA of September 16, 1994, and recommends additional treatments. 405) On or about April 28, 1995, Plaintiff Hammel received a letter from SFI through Savastano, demanding a second IME with Dr. James F. Linder, which Plaintiff attended on May 3, 1995. 406) In his report of that second IME, dated May 3,1995, to Savastano of SFI, Dr Linder, again recommended additional treatments for Plaintiff Hammel, as well as an orthopedic evaluation for Plaintiff's impingement syndrome. 407) Never, in either IME report, does Dr. Linder say, intimate, or express an opinion that no further treatment is necessary as a result of the September 16, 1994 accident. 408) On July 27th, 1995, SFI, through Savastano, with the complicity of Romei and Matthews, in continuation of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of his medical benefits, sent Plaintiff a letter, to which Dr. Linder's report of May 3, 1995 was attached, denying Plaintiff Hammel any further access to the medical benefits of the PIP coverage under his policy. 409) On July 27th, 1995, SFI, through Savastano, with the complicity of Romei and Matthews, perpetuated the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of his medical benefits, by including in her letter the sentence: "In the doctor's opinion, no further treatment is necessary as a result of your September 16, 1994 accident." 410) Savastano took this action because it was very clear to the conspirators of SFI named here that Dr. Linder was not about to be suborned, and that Plaintiff Hammel's benefits had to terminated quickly since the severity of injuries was becoming obvious, the only recourse was a "mad dog" tactic: they lied. 411) This conspiracy achieved its goal, and continues to achieve its goal, extending into a conspiracy by the named Defendant, through its named employees to a conspiracy to commit fraud, achieving that goal when Savastano, in conspiracy with Romei and Matthews told Plaintiff Hammel, on July 31, 1995, that the denial letter "was just a formality" and that he "shouldn't worry". In its further continuation it extended into a conspiracy by the named Defendant, through its named employees, and included employee Murray in its conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of the benefits to which he was entitled, achieving that goal on and after October 18, 1995, when Plaintiff's treating physicians submitted controverting reports informing Defendant of Plaintiff's medical condition, and Defendant SFI, through its named employees wantonly refused to consider that medical information and recklessly continued the denial of all medical treatment benefits to Plaintiff, in complete and utter disregard for the consequences said denial would have on the condition of their insured, Plaintiff Hammel. 412) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 413) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Hammel has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 415) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Savastano, Romei, Matthews, Murray, and Wagle and Psychiatric Associates for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 416) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 92, 94, 95, 111, 114, 116, 123 and 125. 417) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei and Matthews, began a continuing conspiracy to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical benefits by obtaining an IME which they could use for that purpose. To achieve its conspiratorial goal, Defendant SFI, through the named employees, conspired with with Defendant, Psychiatric Associates, P.C., of Hackensack, N.J. Defendant, Psychiatric Associates P.C., joined the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his medical benefits by agreeing to provide such an IME report to the SFI conspirators. 418) Defendant, Psychiatric Associates assigned Plaintiff Bellamente's IME, and the preparation of its report to Defendant, Sharad Wagle, M.D. of Psychiatric Associates, P.C., and related that assignment to SFI's conspirators. 419) On or about April 29, 1995, Defendant, through employee Savastano sent an IME demand for the aforementioned IME to Plaintiff Hammel, in error. On or about June 8, 1995, Defendant, through employee Savastano, sent Plaintiff Bellamente a demand for the IME with Dr. Wagle, to which Plaintiff went, on June 28, 1995. 420) On or about June 28, 1995, after attending the IME with Dr. Wagle, Plaintiff called Defendant to express dismay at his difficulty in communicating with Dr. Wagle, who was from India. Defendant's conspiracy having achieved its first goal when Plaintiff presented himself for the IME, they refused to discuss Plaintiff's problem of communicating with the examining physician. 421) On or about September 15, 1995, Defendant SFI, through the named employees, continued its conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of medical benefits of his policy, by sending to Plaintiff Bellamente a letter terminating all further psychiatric benefits, based solely on the IME, performed by the doctor from India, with whom Plaintiff had explained to Defendant SFI, he had had difficulty communicating. 422) Defendant, through the named employees continued this conspiracy and included employee Murray in its conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of medical benefits on and after October 31, 1995, when Plaintiff's treating psychotherapist, Dr. Martin Kluger, sent Defendant a report, very specifically outlining errors of fact and logic in Dr. Wagle's assessment of the Plaintiff, and SFI through the named employees stubbornly, wantonly and without regard for its insured Plaintiff maintained its wrongful denial of all psychiatric benefits under the PIP coverage in his policy. 423) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 424) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Bellamente has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Psychiatric Associates, P.C., and Wagle have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 426) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Psychiatric Associates, P.C., and Wagle for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Savastano, Romei, Matthews, Murray, Rabin, and Fremed for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 427) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 91, 96, 111, 114, 116, 124, and 134. 428) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei and Matthews, began a continuing conspiracy to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical benefits by obtaining an IME which they could use for that purpose. To achieve its conspiratorial goal the named Defendant, through the named employees, conspired with with Defendant, Drs. Rabin & Fremed, P.C., in Englewood, N.J. (Rabin). Rabin, joined the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his medical benefits by agreeing to provide such an IME report to the SFI conspirators. 429) Rabin assigned Plaintiff Bellamente's IME, and the preparation of its report to Eric L. Fremed, M.D., of Rabin, and related that assignment to SFI's conspirators. 430) On or about April 29, 1995, Defendant SFI, through employee Savastano sent an IME demand for the aforementioned IME to Plaintiff Hammel, in error. On or about June 8, 1995, Defendant SFI, through employee Savastano, sent Plaintiff Bellamente a demand for the IME with Defendant Fremed, to which Plaintiff went, on July 25, 1995. 431) On or about September 15, 1995, Defendant SFI, through the named employees, continued its conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of medical benefits of his policy, by sending to Plaintiff Bellamente a letter terminating all further neurological benefits, based solely on the IME, performed in approximately fifteen minutes, by Fremed. 432) Defendant SFI, through the named employees continued this conspiracy, and included employee Murray in its conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of medical benefits on and after October 23, 1995, when Plaintiff's treating Neurosurgeon, Dr Robert Rubin, sent Defendant's employee Murray a report, very specifically stating that Plaintiff Bellamente had one, and possibly two disc herniations, which he believed were caused by the MVA, and SFI through the named employees stubbornly, wantonly and without regard for its insured Plaintiff maintained its wrongful denial of all neurological benefits under the PIP coverage in his policy. 433) Defendant, through the named employees continued this conspiracy, and included employee Murray in its conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of medical benefits on and after November 10, 1995, when Plaintiff's treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr John F. Pojedinec, sent Defendant's employee Murray a letter, very specifically stating that Plaintiff Bellamente's "cervical radiculopathy is indeed present, is genuine and is the result of his motor vehicle accident on September 16, 1994", and SFI through the named employees stubbornly, wantonly and without regard for its insured Plaintiff maintained its wrongful denial of all neurological benefits under the PIP coverage in his policy. 434) In so doing, Defendant SFI has committed conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 435) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Bellamente has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Rabin, and Fremed have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 437) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Rabin, and Fremed for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. TWENTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI and SFM for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 438) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 161, 180 - 189, 203 and 204. 439) On or about March 20, 1996, Defendant SFI through its employees Murray, Matthews Romei and others, began a continuing conspiracy with Defendant SFM, through its employees Robert Gordon, David Allen Swann, Charles Allen and certain others at SFM's Asheville, North Carolina office, and Jim Zitney, Joan Amzler and possibly others at SFM's Franklin, North Carolina office, for the purpose of having SFM deny Plaintiffs' medical benefits under the PIP coverage in their policy for injuries Plaintiff's sustained in the MVA of September 16, 1994. 440) On or about March 20, 1996, Defendant SFM, through the named employees, continued this conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs' of medical benefits of their policy, by receiving and accepting Plaintiff's PIP file assignment, first at its Franklin, N.C. office, and then referring it to its Asheville, N.C. office. 441) On or about March 28, 1996, it appears that Defendant SFM, through its employee Amzler at Franklin, attempts to implicate the Plaintiff's in their conspiracy, by an entry in an activity log which reads: "Insured called today to advise of new address - c/o General Delivery - to the attention of Dr. Wm. c. [sic] Hummel [sic], Robbinsville, N.J. [sic] 28771. Telephone No. (704) 479-1547. He is requesting that Franklin handle PIP claims." Plaintiffs maintain that that conversation never took place. 442) On or about April 4, 1996, Defendant SFM, through its employee Jim Zitney, agreed to continue the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiffs in communications with Defendant SFI's employee Murray. 443) On or about May 21, 1996, Defendant SFM, through Zitney, in conspiracy with SFI, through employee Murray, sent Plaintiffs certified letters denying medical benefits under their policy for treatment Plaintiffs received in North Carolina, further defrauding Plaintiffs of their benefits under their policy. 444) On or about September 25, 1996, Defendants SFM, through employee Zitney, and SFI through employee Murray, in furtherance of their scheme of conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Hammel, willfully and wantonly and without regard for the medical consequences on Plaintiff Hammel, denied a request by Duke University Medical Center, for payment under Plaintiff Hammel's PIP coverage, to perform medically necessary cervical surgery which had been scheduled by Dr. Michael M. Haglund, to decompress Plaintiff Hammel's cervical spinal cord. Said spinal cord compression having resulted from the MVA of September 16, 1994. 445) In so doing, Defendants SFI and SFM have committed conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 446) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs have sustained permanent damages to their business, property and person as set forth in section SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 448) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 449) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 220. 450) On or before January 5, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Defendant Fremed, began a continuing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits under his policy with SFI. 451) On or before January 5, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee conspired with Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits by SFI directing Melli to procure a fraudulent medical review of Plaintiff Bellamente's medical records. 452) On or before January 5, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed. P.C. to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy to to defraud Plaintiff. 453) On or before January 5, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Dr. Fremed to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Defendant Fremed in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. 454) On or about January 5, 1999, Defendant Fremed of Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., produced such a report, which Defendant Fremed presented as valid and professionally competent. That Paper Review was based primarily on his prior fraudulent IME report, and summarily dismissing the opinions and knowledge of all treating healthcare givers. While knowing that it was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey, Defendant Fremed, nevertheless sent it to Defendant Melli, specifically, to employee Wall. 455) On information, belief and reasonable investigation, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, has submitted that report to the UIM Arbitration Panel, an adjudicating body in the State of New Jersey. 456) In so doing, Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli, Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Fremed have committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 457) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Bellamente has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Melli, Rabin and Fremed have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 459) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 460) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 229. 461) On or before June 14, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Defendant Fremed, actively continued their ongoing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits under his policy with SFI. 462) On or before June 14, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee conspired with Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits by SFI directing Melli to procure a fraudulent medical review of Plaintiff Bellamente's medical records. 463) On or before June 14, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed. P.C. to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy to to defraud Plaintiff. 464) On or before June 14, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Dr. Fremed to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Defendant Fremed in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. 465) On or about June 14, 1999, Defendant Fremed of Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., produced such a report, in the form of another Paper Review, again based primarily upon his previous fraudulent IME report and containing excerpted and misleading statements, as well as patently inadmissible evidence, and sent it to Defendant Melli, specifically, to employee Wall. 466) On information, belief and reasonable investigation, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, has submitted that report to the UIM Arbitration Panel, an adjudicating body in the State of New Jersey. 467) In so doing, Defendants SFI and SFM have committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 468) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Bellamente has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 470) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 471) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 229. 472) On or before December 23, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Defendant Fremed, actively pursued their continuing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits under his policy with SFI. 473) On or before December 23, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee conspired with Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of his benefits by SFI directing Melli to procure a fraudulent medical review of Plaintiff Bellamente's medical records. 474) On or before December 23, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed. P.C. to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy to to defraud Plaintiff. 475) On or before December 23, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Dr. Fremed to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Bellamente of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Defendant Fremed in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. 476) On or about December 23, 1999, Defendant Fremed of Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., produced such a report, yet again, in the form of a Paper Review containing excerpted and misleading statements, and once again, ignoring any comments by healthcare givers which did not suit his conspiratorial purpose, and sent it to Defendant Melli, specifically, to employee Wall. 477) On information, belief and reasonable investigation, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, has submitted that report to the UIM Arbitration Panel, an adjudicating body in the State of New Jersey. 478) In so doing, Defendants SFI and SFM have committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 479) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Bellamente has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 481) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 482) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 231 and 232. 483) On or before June 30, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Defendant Fremed, actively pursued their continuing conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of his benefits under his policy with SFI. 484) On or before June 30, 1999, Defendant SFI, through an unknown employee conspired with Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of his benefits by SFI directing Melli to procure a fraudulent medical review of Plaintiff Hammel's medical records. 485) On or before June 30, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Drs. Rabin and Fremed. P.C. to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy to to defraud Plaintiff. 486) On or before June 30, 1999, Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, conspired with Defendant Dr. Fremed to prepare such a review as would enable the conspiracy to continue to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of the benefits under his policy with SFI, and provided medical records of Plaintiff, by mail, to Defendant Fremed in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff. 487) On or about June 30, 1999, Defendant Fremed of Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., produced such a report in the form of a Paper Review containing excerpted and misleading statements, and ignoring any comments by healthcare givers which did not suit his conspiratorial purpose. The Paper Review dated June 30, 1999, was presented as valid and professionally competent, by Fremed, while knowing that is was a sham and a fabrication, and knowing the use to which it would be put, in particular knowing that the Review could be submitted to the Superior Court of of New Jersey, and/or an arbitration panel, an adjudicating body of the State of New Jersey. 488) Defendant Melli, through employee Wall, has submitted that report to the UIM Arbitration Panel, an adjudicating body in the State of New Jersey. 489) In so doing, Defendants SFI and SFM have committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 490) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Hammel has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 492) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, Melli, Rabin, and Fremed for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI and SFM for the tort of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD) 493) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 208 and 209. 494) On or about December 3, 1996, Defendants SFM, through employee Zitney, and SFI through Defendant Melli by Miller, in furtherance of their scheme of conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff Hammel, attempted, by action of Zitney of SFM, to thwart Plaintiff Hammel's attorney in his attempt to have Hammel's surgery ordered by the Superior Court in New Jersey. 495) On or about December 3, 1996, Miller of Melli drafted an artful and misleading "Certification In Opposition To Plaintiff's Application", and forwarded it, by wire, to Jim Zitney of SFM. 496) On December 3, 1996, Jim Zitney, of SFM knowingly signed and delivered to Miller of Melli, that same misleading "Certification", whose purpose was to oppose an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff Hammel's cervical surgery for a compressed spinal cord should not be allowed, on Motion by Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Paul J. Jackson. 497) Mr. Zitney knew the purpose of that artful Certification and deliberately acceded in the conspiracy to omit knowledge that was in his possession, but that would have weakened his certification. 498) On information, belief and reasonable investigation, Melli, through Miller, submitted Zitney's signed, Miller-written Certification to the Superior Court in New Jersey, further conspiring to defraud Plaintiff Hammel of any medical benefits under the PIP coverage of his policy. 499) In so doing, Defendants SFI and SFM have committed Conspiracy to commit fraud which has been consummated and continues to exist through the instruments of other unlawful acts. 500) As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff Hammel has sustained permanent damages to his business, property and person as set forth in section SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 502) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. THIRTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against all Defendants for the violation of 18 USC 1341 MAIL FRAUD) 503) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 119-123 504) All Renewal Notices where sent by mail, so that Plaintiffs paid for insurance upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. 505) Each and every denial of medical benefits by mail is a Predicate act of fraud in furtherance of a scheme to deny meritorious claims. 506) A scheme to defraud using the mails is defined by the intentional communications by mail to Plaintiffs and among all the Defendants, internally by SFM and internally by SFI, that committed fraud or were in furtherance of the fraud conducted by SFI and SFM. 507) The acts of 384, 385 together with the scheme of 386 constitute mail fraud. THIRTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against all Defendants for the violation of 18 USC 1343 WIRE FRAUD) 508) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly, 119-123 509) Plaintiffs reallege 118 Savastano's phone call was a fraud upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. 510) Plaintiffs reallege 153-156 Matthews' phone call was a fraud upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. 511) A scheme to defraud using the phone and fax is defined by the intentional communications by wire to Plaintiffs and among all the Defendants, and the internal electronic "DESK" system that is uniform through SFM and SFI, that committed fraud or were in furtherance of the fraud conducted by SFI and SFM. 512) The acts of 391, 392 together with the scheme of 393 constitute wire fraud. THIRTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI for EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 513) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 59. 514) On or about September 20, 1994, Defendant SFI, through Savastano, intentionally exploited Plaintiff Bellamente's fear of being denied benefits under his policy if he did not comply with her order to abandon his active previous claim with SFM. Defendant's act, which was a breach of fiduciary duty was also the instrument of inducing this fear in Plaintiff. 515) Plaintiff Bellamente, with fear and incomplete willingness, complied with SFI's edict. 516) By its actions, Defendant SFI obtained by the inducement of fear, the unused remainder of his coverage that was rightfully his, arising out of an August 6, 1992 MVA, committed Extortion in addition to breach of fiduciary duty. THIRTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI for ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 517) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 59. 518) On or about September 20, 1994, Defendant SFI, through Savastano, intentionally exploited Plaintiff Bellamente's fear of being denied benefits under his policy if he did not comply with her order to abandon his active previous claim with SFM. Defendant's act, which was a breach of fiduciary duty was also the instrument of inducing this fear in Plaintiff. 519) Plaintiff Bellamente, with fear and incomplete willingness, complied with SFI's edict. Under such a condition of fear, the willingness and unwillingness, simultaneously, to comply with what has been demanded is a difficult condition to infer, especially when the person demanding the action is in a superior position. That a condition of willingness and unwillingness should exist is not unreasonable. 520) By its actions, Defendant SFI obtained by the inducement of fear, the unused remainder of his coverage that was rightfully his, arising out of an August 6, 1992 MVA, and so, committed Robbery in addition to breach of fiduciary duty. THIRTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 521) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 97 - 99, and 103. 522) On or before July 27, 1995, SFI, through its employees Savastano, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired to commit Extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, by acting unlawfully in consort, to effect the plenary termination of his PIP medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared to be. Defendant SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this conspiracy to commit extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 523) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 97 - 99, and 103. 524) On or before July 27, 1995, SFI, through its employees Savastano, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired to commit Robbery of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, by acting unlawfully in consort, to effect the plenary termination of his PIP medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared to be. Defendant SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this conspiracy to commit extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Fremed for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 525) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 91, 96, 111 and 112. 526) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired with Defendants Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Fremed to commit Extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente. The named conspirators sought to provide, unlawfully, a fabricated and false excuse, in the form of an IME report, to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical (neurological) benefits, when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious that they first appeared. FORTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Fremed for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 527) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 91, 96, 111 - 115. 528) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired with Defendants Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., and Fremed to commit Robbery of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente. The named conspirators sought to provide, unlawfully, a fabricated and false excuse, in the form of an IME report, to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical (neurological) benefits, when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious that they first appeared. FORTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Psychiatric Associates, and Wagle for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 529) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 92, 94, 95, 111, 112, 14, 116. 530) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired with Defendants Psychiatric Associates, P.C.,and Wagle to commit extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente. The named conspirators sought to provide, unlawfully, a fabricated and false excuse, in the form of an IME report, to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical (psychiatric) benefits, when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. FORTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, Psychiatric Associates, and Wagle for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 531) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 92, 94, 95, 111, 112, 14, 116. 532) On or about April 28, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei Matthews, and other as yet unknown persons, conspired with Defendants Psychiatric Associates, P.C.,and Wagle to commit Robbery of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente. The named conspirators sought to provide, unlawfully, a fabricated and false excuse, in the form of an IME report, to terminate Plaintiff Bellamente's medical (psychiatric) benefits, when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. FORTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 533) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 111, and 115. 534) On or about September 16, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Wade, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, engaged in Conspiracy to Commit Extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, by unlawfully terminating his neurologic and psychiatric medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Conspiracy to Commit Extortion of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 535) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 111, and 115. 536) On or about September 16, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Wade, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, engaged in Conspiracy to Commit Robbery of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, by unlawfully terminating his neurologic and psychiatric medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Conspiracy to Commit Robbery of, and induce fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 537) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 97 - 99, and 103 538) On or before July 27, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, committed Extortion of, and induced fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, by unlawfully effecting the plenary termination of his medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Extortion of, and inducement of fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 539) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 97 - 99, and 103 540) On or before July 27, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, committed Robbery of, and induced fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, by unlawfully effecting the plenary termination of his medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Robbery of, and inducement of fear in, Plaintiff Hammel, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FORTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 541) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 111, and 115. 542) On or about September 16, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Wade, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, committed Extortion of, and induced fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, by unlawfully terminating his neurologic and psychiatric medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Extortion of, and inducement fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FIFTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, ROBBERY in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 543) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly: 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 111, and 115. 544) On or about September 16, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Wade, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, committed Robbery of, and induced fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, by unlawfully terminating his neurologic and psychiatric medical benefits when it had recently been discovered that his injuries were more serious than they first appeared. SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Robbery of, and inducement fear in, Plaintiff Bellamente, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. FIFTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, for EXTORTION in violation of 18 USC 1951 (a)) 545) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 546) On or about September 16, 1995, Defendant SFI through its employees Savastano, Wade, Romei, Matthews, and other as yet unknown employees, by inducing of great fear, committed Extortion of Plaintiffs, by unlawfully obtaining money benefits due Plaintiffs, for Defendant's own use. 547) Defendant's Extortion of Plaintiffs continued when Plaintiffs were forced to litigate in order that they might recover those money benefits due them which Defendants had unlawfully obtained through Extortion. 548) Defendant, by forcing Plaintiffs to litigate, in an attempt to gain the money benefits to which they were entitled under their policy, has continued its Extortion by delaying tactics in the very litigation process itself, allowing it to keep to itself for an even longer time, thereby gaining interest on the extorted money, benefits which should rightfully been paid to Plaintiffs, or to others on their behalf, five years ago. 549) SFI is responsible for the acts of its employees. SFI has condoned their action, to the present time, having been given ample time and information to recant and reverse that action. SFI is also a participant, as a corporation, in this Extortion of, and inducement fear in both Plaintiffs, through the chain of corporate command to its CEO Terence Welsh, and beyond him, through the Parent company, SFM, to its CEO Edward B. Rust, Jr., on the theory of Vicarious Liability. ____________________________________________________________________ COUNTS OF RICO FIFTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(a)) RICO count 1 550) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 551) For the purposes of this cause of action SFM is both the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and the "enterprise" as defined in 18 USC 1961(4). It is a principal as itself as defined in 18 USC Sect. 2. 552) SFM has received income, or the proceeds, directly or indirectly from its patterns of racketeering activities, one pattern of which is called "claims handling". SFM uses some part of this income directly or indirectly to maintain and operate itself. 553) SFM's activities affect interstate and foreign commerce. 554) SFM home office maintains a "divisional claims management", wherein the practices of claims handling of SFM is propagated to all of its wholly owned incorporated subsidiaries that are insurers, so that it may be logically inferred that the claims handling of SFM is equivalent to that of any of these wholly owned incorporated subsidiaries; SFI, is, one of these entities. Predicate Acts: 555) Defendant SFM as a mutual corporation has instituted a policy of defrauding, extorting and robbing its stockholders who are policy holders, using multiple schemes to deny policy holders all or part of the money due them from meritorious claims. Each of hundreds of thousands of such action involves fraud, extortion, robbery and the conspiracy to commit each of these three, in violation of 18 USC 1951. 556) Each scheme employs a system of tactics that are predicate acts of the six (6) types of the previous paragraph. In addition, both mail and wire are used in effecting the the myriad predicate acts, in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 respectively. 557) All these schemes have a long lived continuity of approximately twenty-five (25) years, and there is no evidence that they will stop and so present a threat of continuation into the future. 558) All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 559) These predicate acts therefore constitute a pattern of racketeering as defined in 18 USC 1961(1), that happen to be best understood by being parsed into distinct schemes of claims handling whose sole purposes are profit and reckless, unjust enrichment. 560) Plaintiffs here reference their "Memorandum On The Racketeering Nature OF State Farm's Misconduct." 561) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly by the acts of Defendant SFM in the respects alleged in section VIII, which is here included by reference. 562) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant SFM pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c) of RICO for compensatory and treble damages, together with interest thereon, attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. 563) Plaintiffs pray the Court, in this cause of action, that the Court allow those entities named as "Other Parties that are neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants" to present their proofs of damages due to State Farm's patterns of racketeering activities, and so seek appropriate compensation for their damages pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c). 564) Plaintiffs pray the Court also allow that these entities be allowed intervenor status should they seek it, and not prejudice Plaintiffs' claims. FIFTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(a)) RICO count 2 565) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 566) SFM organized and established SFI in 1991 supposedly to isolate State Farm Group's New Jersey automobile business because of concerns over the pricing and regulatory environment in the State. SFI began writing policies in October, 1992. In May 1993, it started renewing New Jersey policies previously written by its parent. SFI was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois January 18, 1991. 567) SFM has received income directly and indirectly from its patterns of racketeering activities, one pattern of which is called "claims handling". 568) For the purposes of this cause of action SFM is the "person" and SFI is the "enterprise". SFM is a principal as defined in 18 USC Sect. 2. 569) SFM used some part of this income directly or indirectly to establish, and uses some part of this income to operate SFI, and SFI affects interstate commerce, since there are other insurers doing business in New Jersey who also do business in other States. 570) Although Plaintiffs seek no damages in this cause of action since they cannot expect damages due others, Plaintiffs pray the Court allow that those entities named as "Other Parties that are neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants" should be permitted to present their proofs of damage due to State Farm's racketeering activities and so seek appropriate compensation for their damages under 18 USC 1964(c). 571) Plaintiffs pray the Court also allow that these entities be allowed intervenor status should they seek it, and not prejudice Plaintiffs' claims. FIFTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(a)) RICO count 3 572) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 573) SFI has received income from its patterns of racketeering activities, one pattern of which is called "claims handling". For the purposes of this cause of action SFI is both the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and the "enterprise" as defined in 18 USC 1961(4). It is a principal as itself as defined in 18 USC Sect. 2. 574) SFI uses some part of this income to maintain itself; its interstate enterprise affects interstate commerce. Predicate Acts: 575) Defendant SFI as a wholly owned incorporated subsidiary of SFM has instituted a policy, dictated by its parent SFM, of defrauding, extorting and robbing its policy holders, using multiple schemes to deny policy holders all or part of the money due them from meritorious claims. Each of hundreds of thousands of such action involves fraud, extortion, robbery and the conspiracy to commit each of these three, in violation of 18 USC 1951. 576) Each scheme employs a system of tactics that are predicate acts of the six (6) types of the previous paragraph. In addition, both mail and wire are used in effecting the the myriad predicate acts, in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 respectively. 577) All these schemes have a long lived continuity of approximately eight (8) years, and there is no evidence that they will stop and so present a threat of continuation into the future. 578) All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 579) Plaintiffs allege that the one healthcare creditor, Teaneck Radiology, who pursued SFI's using a collection agency, received not only the payment, but interest on this this payment as a result of SFI's long delays as provided for by the laws of the State of New Jersey. No other bills paid at that time, though some were for thousands of dollars and delayed over a period of years, were also paid interest according to law. It is a pattern of robbery and extortion that SFI will not pay its debts, and a conspiracy with a result of either robbery or extortion, from which SFI profits. 580) These predicate acts therefore constitute a pattern of racketeering as defined in 18 USC 1961(1), that happen to be best understood by being parsed into distinct schemes of claims handling whose sole purposes are profit and reckless, unjust enrichment. 581) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly by the acts of Defendant SFM in the respects alleged in section VIII, which is here included by reference. Plaintiffs demand judgement in the form of appropriate compensation for their damages pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c). 582) Plaintiffs pray the Court allow that those entities named as "Other Parties that are neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants" be permitted to present their proofs of damage due to State Farm's racketeering activities and so demand judgement in the form of appropriate compensation for their damages under 18 USC 1964(c). 583) Plaintiffs pray the Court also allow that these entities be allowed intervenor status should they seek it, and not prejudice Plaintiffs' claims. FIFTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(a)) RICO count 4 584) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 585) SFI has received income directly or indirectly from conducting or participating in patterns of racketeering activities, one pattern of which is called "claims handling". For the purposes of this cause of action SFI is the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and SFI and Melli is the "enterprise", an association in fact, as defined in 18 USC 1961(4). SFI is a principal as defined in 18 USC Sect. 2. 586) SFI uses some part of this income or proceeds of this of this income in the establishment or operation of the enterprise which is engaged in or the activities of which affect interstate commerce. Predicate Acts: 587) Defendant SFI as a wholly owned incorporated subsidiary of SFM has instituted a policy, dictated by its parent SFM, of defrauding, extorting and robbing its policy holders, using multiple schemes to deny policy holders all or part of the money due them from meritorious claims. Each of hundreds of thousands of such action involves fraud, extortion, robbery and the conspiracy to commit each of these three, in violation of 18 USC 1951. 588) Each scheme employs a system of tactics that are predicate acts of the six (6) types of the previous paragraph. In addition, both mail and wire are used in effecting the the myriad predicate acts, in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 respectively. 589) All these schemes have a long lived continuity of approximately eight (8) years, and there is no evidence that they will stop and so present a threat of continuation into the future. 590) All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 591) SFI, through its engineered superior position in the enterprise spreads its unlawful claims handling practices into the litigation process with Plaintiffs, through Melli, violating 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1343, and 18 USC 1951, and by inducing Melli to commit other unlaw acts. 592) These predicate acts, therefore, constitute a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18 USC 1961(1), that happen to be best understood by being parsed into distinct schemes of claims handling whose sole purposes are profit and reckless, unjust enrichment. 593) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly by the acts of Defendant SFI in the respects alleged in section VIII, which is here included by reference. 594) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c) Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 595) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FIFTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant Melli for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(a)) RICO count 5 596) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 597) Melli has received income directly or indirectly from conducting or participating in a pattern of racketeering activities, which is called "conspiracy to commit abuse of process" and "abuse of process" that violate 18 USC 1951. For the purposes of this cause of action Melli is the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and SFI and Melli is the "enterprise", an association in fact, as defined in 18 USC 1961(4). SFI is a principal as defined in 18 USC Sect. 2. 598) Melli uses some part of this income, or proceeds of this income, in the establishment or operation of the enterprise which is engaged in or the activities of which affect interstate commerce. Predicate Acts: 599) Defendant Melli is a law firm, and a professional corporation which has agreed to conspire with SFI to form the enterprise whose purpose is to extend SFI's racketeering tactics into the litigation process when denied policy holders are forced to sue SFI for benefits of policies that are due the policy holders of SFI upon meritorious claims. Melli is a co-conspirator and collaborator in SFI's instituted a policy, of defrauding, extorting and robbing its policy holders, using multiple schemes to deny policy holders all or part of the money due them from meritorious claims. Each of hundreds of such actions per year involves fraud, extortion, robbery and the conspiracy to commit each of these three, in violation of 18 USC 1951, enriching both SFI and Melli, unjustly and recklessly. 600) Each scheme employs a system of tactics that are predicate acts of the six (6) types of the previous paragraph. In addition, both mail and wire are used in effecting the the myriad predicate acts, in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 18 USC 1343 respectively. 601) All these schemes have a continuity of length unknown to Plaintiffs, but which exceeds five (5) years; there is no evidence that the pattern of racketeering will stop, and so it presents a threat of continuation into the future. 602) All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 603) These predicate acts therefore constitute a pattern of racketeering as defined in 18 USC 1961(1), whose sole purposes are profit and reckless, unjust enrichment. 604) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly by the acts of Defendant Melli in the respects alleged in section VIII, which is here included by reference. 605) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c) Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 606) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. 607) Plaintiffs pray the Court allow that those entities named as "Other Parties that are neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants" be permitted to present their proofs of damage due to Melli's racketeering activities and so seek appropriate compensation for their damages under 18 USC 1964(c). 608) Plaintiffs pray the Court also allow that these entities be allowed intervenor status should they seek it, and not prejudice Plaintiffs' claims. FIFTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(b)) RICO count 6 609) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 610) SFM acquired and interest in or control of SFI by buying 281,000 outstanding common shares at a par value of $100 per share. SFI has 1,500,000 authorized shares. 611) SFM maintains an interest in SFI and a control of SFI through its own patterns of racketeering activities, also a control, in transference of its own patterns of racketeering activities to its subsidiary corporation. 612) SFI is engaged in, or its activities affect interstate or foreign commerce. 613) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint, by the pattern of racketeering activities and predicate acts engaged in by defendant SFM, and by the creation of SFI as SFM's instrument of conducting its affairs in New Jersey. 614) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 615) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FIFTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFM, SFI and Melli for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(b)) RICO count 7 616) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 617) For the purposes of this cause of action SFI is the person and Melli is the enterprise. 618) SFI is an incorporated, wholly owned subsidiary of SFM, and under the principle of respondeat superior, SFM should have vicarious liability for the actions of SFI; alternatively, although SFM and SFI are indeed distinct persons as defined by 18 USC 1961(3), their unusual and suspect closeness in their intertwining patterns of racketeering activities and other unlawful schemes demand that that veil of separateness be pierced and that SFM be held directly liable for the activities of SFI. 619) Melli is engaged as attorney for SFI for a substantial part of its caseload, and so profits from its association with SFI. 620) SFI has the power to cease retaining Melli as attorney altogether, and therefore can control Melli. 621) SFI maintains a control of Melli through extortionate fear of suddenly losing a substantial part of its cases, and through its control, SFI transfers its own patterns of racketeering activities to Melli, causing Melli to perform unethical, deceitful and unlawful acts in order to achieve SFI's purpose, which are profit and reckless, unjust enrichment. 622) Melli is engaged in, or its activities affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 623) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their business and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint, by the pattern of racketeering activities and predicate acts engaged in by defendants SFM, SFI and Melli. 624) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFM, SFI and Melli has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 625) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFM, SFI and Melli for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. FIFTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(b)) RICO count 8 626) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 627) For the purposes of this cause of action SFI is the person and The New Jersey Department of Insurance (NJDOI) is the enterprise. 628) SFI is an insurer doing business in New Jersey and is regulated by The NJDOI to which it is responsible. 629) When a complaint is filed against SFI, or any other insurer doing business in New Jersey, NJDOI investigates the complaint. 630) NJDOI relies upon the truthfulness of the insurer in its responses to investigation and interrogation by NJDOI. 631) SFI has the power to influence the decisions of NJDOI by responding in misleading, incomplete and fraudulent ways, and can thus maintain control over its decisions and behavior. 632) SFI has maintained and apparently does maintain such a control of NJDOI, and in so doing harms its insureds who complain to NJDOI of SFI's acts which are in furtherance of its pattern of racketeering activities. 633) SFI has used this exact control over NJDOI to harm and injure Plaintiffs, by intentionally providing to NJDOI, misleading, obfuscatory, incomplete and therefore fraudulent "information". 634) NJDOI is engaged in, or it activities affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 635) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint, by the pattern of racketeering activities, and Defendants' trickery and deception of NJDOI in attempting to hide pattern of racketeering activities as well as other unlawful acts committed by SFI. 636) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 637) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(b)) RICO count 9 638) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph and all previously referenced documents set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 639) For the purposes of this cause of action SFM is the person and The New Jersey Department of Insurance (NJDOI) is the enterprise. 640) SFM is an insurer doing business in New Jersey and is regulated by The NJDOI to which it is responsible. 641) When a complaint is filed against SFM, or any other insurer doing business in New Jersey, NJDOI investigates the complaint. 642) NJDOI relies upon the truthfulness of the insurer in its responses to investigation and interrogation by NJDOI. 643) SFM has the power to influence the decisions of NJDOI by responding in misleading, incomplete and fraudulent ways, and can thus maintain control over its decisions and behavior. 644) SFM has maintained and apparently does maintain such a control of NJDOI, and in so doing harms its insureds who complain to NJDOI of SFM acts which are in furtherance of its pattern of racketeering activities. 645) SFM has used this exact control over NJDOI to harm and injure Plaintiffs, by intentionally providing to it, misleading, obfuscatory, incomplete and fraudulent "information". 646) NJDOI is engaged in, or it activities affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 647) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property, as set forth in section VIII of this complaint, by the pattern of racketeering activities, and Defendant's trickery and deception of NJDOI in attempting to hide its patterns of racketeering activities as well as other unlawful acts committed by SFM. 648) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 649) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, or SFM through its Direct, or Vicarious Liability through the principle of respondeat superior, for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(c)) RICO count 10 650) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, specifically, 503-512, 513-547. 651) For the purposes of this cause of action SFI is the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and SFM is the "enterprise" as defined 18 USC 1961(4). 652) SFI is associated with SFM as an incorporated wholly owned subsidiary. 653) SFM is engaged in, or its activities affect interstate or foreign commerce. 654) SFI conducts or participates, directly or indirectly in in the conduct of SFM's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. 655) SFI has conducted SFM's affairs through a pattern of racketeering when SFI, unbidden, transferred its file regarding Plaintiffs' claims to SFM in North Carolina, and in its instructions through its named employees, on request for such instructions by named employees of SFM. 656) The Pattern of Racketeering activities is defined by the nexus of interrelated alleged violations of 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1342 and 18 USC 1952 as predicate acts. All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 657) This still open pattern has a continuity starting on or about May 1, 1995. 658) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 659) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 660) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the Defendant for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(c)) RICO count 11 661) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, specifically, 503-512, 513-547. 662) For the purposes of this cause of action SFM is the "person" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and SFI is the "enterprise" as defined 18 USC 1961(4). 663) SFI is associated with SFM as an incorporated wholly owned subsidiary. 664) SFI is engaged in, or its activities affect interstate or foreign commerce. 665) SFM conducts or participates, directly or indirectly in in the conduct of SFI's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. 666) SFM has conducted SFI's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity as it has organized and capitalized SFI, owning it, and controlling it as a wholly owed subsidiary, merely as an alter ego: an instrument to conduct and orchestrate its own affairs in the State of New Jersey for the purpose of defrauding its onetime stockholders and concomitant policy holders. 667) SFM controls the claims handling procedures of SFI so as to be in accordance with its own claims handling procedures. 668) The Pattern of Racketeering activities is defined by the nexus of interrelated alleged violations of 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1342 and 18 USC 1951 as predicate acts. All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 669) This still open pattern has a continuity starting on or about May 1, 1995. 670) SFI is an incorporated, wholly owned subsidiary of SFM, and under the principle of respondeat superior, SFM should have vicarious liability for the actions of SFI; alternatively, although SFM and SFI are indeed distinct persons as defined by 18 USC 1961(3), their unusual and suspect closeness in their intertwining patterns of racketeering activities and other unlawful schemes demand that that veil of separateness be pierced and that SFM be held directly responsible for the activities of SFI. 671) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 672) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 673) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the Defendant for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants Melli, Fremed, Rabin, Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(c)) RICO count 12 674) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, specifically, 503-512, 513-547. 675) For the purposes of this cause of action Melli, Fremed, Rabin, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates are the "persons" as defined in 18 USC 1961(3) and SFM and SFI is the "enterprise" as defined 18 USC 1961(4). 676) SFI is associated with SFM as an incorporated wholly owned subsidiary. 677) SFI and SFM as the enterprise is engaged in, or its activities affect interstate or foreign commerce. 678) Melli, Fremed, Rabin, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates are all employed by the enterprise and have therefore profited from the pattern of racketeering activities; all conduct or participate, directly or indirectly in in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities. 679) Melli, Fremed, Rabin, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates direct the affairs of the enterprise by providing the specific and technical tools of their special knowledge in order to achieve the ends, profit and reckless, unjust enrichment, of the enterprise, and in so doing, profit themselves. 680) The Pattern of Racketeering activities is defined by the nexus of interrelated alleged violations of 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1342 and 18 USC 1951 as predicate acts. All myriad criminal predicate acts of each scheme, as well as the schemes themselves have same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims and methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. 681) This still open pattern has a continuity starting on or about May 1, 1995. 682) Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 683) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 684) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle, Psychiatric Associates and Melli for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(d)) RICO count 13 685) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 686) For the purposes of this cause of action, SFI is the "enterprise", and the other named defendants: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates and Melli are the persons. 687) Two or more of the individual Defendants combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert in the affairs of the enterprise, to commit acts which are unlawful and in furtherance of the violations of the above counts of RICO numbered: 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, though which, Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 688) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 689) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(d)) RICO count 14 690) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 691) For the purposes of this cause of action, SFM is the "enterprise", and the other named defendants: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, are the persons. 692) Two or more of the individual Defendants combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert in the affairs of the enterprise, to commit acts which are unlawful and in furtherance of the violations of the above counts of RICO numbered: 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, though which, Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 693) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about March 20, 1996 and with unknown continuation. 694) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for Racketeering under 18 USC 1962(d)) RICO count 15 695) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 696) For the purposes of this cause of action, SFM and SFI is the "enterprise", and the other named defendants: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, are the persons. 697) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are employees servants or agents of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the affairs of the enterprise, to commit acts which are unlawful and in furtherance of the violations of the above counts of RICO numbered: 9, 10, 12, though which, Plaintiffs have been damaged directly in their businesses and property as set forth in section VIII of this complaint which is included here by reference. 698) WHEREFORE, pursuant to 18 USC 1964(c), Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their businesses, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the foreseeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 699) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ____________________________________________________________________ NORTH CAROLINA SUPPLEMENTARY ACTIONS SIXTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, or SFM as the responsible parent for the intentional tort of BAD FAITH) 700) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 701) Defendant SFI had, and still has a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff Bellamente to act in Bellamente's, i.e., their insured's interest over their own interest. It did not. 702) Defendant SFI had a a duty to investigate Bellamente's claim. When it became clear through objective radiologicals that Bellamente's physical damages were of a considerably more serious nature than was originally apparent, Defendant SFI, sought "to investigate his claims" by conspiring with two physicians to produce a sham IME in order to deny Bellamente's claims to medically necessary treatment. 703) Defendant SFI conspired with Sharad Wagle, M.D. to produce a sham IME in order deny Plaintiff Bellamente medically necessary psychiatric treatment. 704) Defendant SFI conspired with Eric L. Fremed, M.D. to produce a sham IME in order deny Plaintiff Bellamente medically necessary surgery to relieve pressure on his cervical spinal cord. 705) Despite the opinions of Dr. David J. Adams, M.D. (neurologist) Robert C. Rubin, M.D (neurosurgeon) and John F. Pojedinec, M.D (orthopedic surgeon), and that the appropriate surgery was planned, Defendant SFI insisted on the validity of Dr. Fremed's sham review to continue denial of Bellamente's surgery. 706) Defendant SFI attempted "to investigate the claim" of Plaintiff Bellamente in response by demanding an IME with a physician known in medical and legal circles as a physician who's business was as a medical prostitute for insurance company. 707) Plaintiff Bellamente declined, as is his right, to be examined by this physician Harry Merliss, M.D., which was sufficient excuse for SFI continuing the denial, and an accusation that Bellamente was being "uncooperative" with IMEs. 708) Not only did Defendant SFI defraud and damage Plaintiff, but it also sought to hide its fraud through deceit and trickery, thus demonstrating the intention and calculation of the fraud. 709) In its continuing acts in furtherance of its fraud, with the knowledge of the objective facts and preponderance of independent medical opinions, Defendant SFI and SFM demonstrated a reckless and wanton disregard for the damages that it was inflicting on its own insured, and the consequences those damages would have on the insured Plaintiff. 710) Though Plaintiff Bellamente was reduced to poverty and disability by Defendant SFI, his medically necessary surgery was finally performed under Medicaid. The delay in the spinal cord decompression has left him with permanent and disabling neurological injury. 711) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant(s) for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant('s) conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 712) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant(s) for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BAD FAITH) 713) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 714) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the commission of Bad Faith against Plaintiff Bellamente. 715) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI, SFM, Rabin, Fremed, Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates, P.C., have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 716) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, Rabin, Fremed, Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SIXTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI, or SFM as the responsible parent for the intentional tort of BAD FAITH) 717) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 718) Defendant SFI had, and still has a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff Hammel to act in Hammel's, i.e., their insured's interest over their own interest. It did not. 719) Defendant SFI had a a duty to investigate Hammel's claim. When it became clear through objective radiologicals that Hammel's physical damages were of a considerably more serious nature than was originally apparent, Defendant SFI, sought "to investigate his claims" by attempting to conspire, unsuccessfully, with James F. Linder, P.T., D.C. to deny Hammel's claims to medically necessary treatment. 720) When this failed, Defendant SFI simply waited until the time of Dr. Linder's suggested further treatment elapsed, and then denied all medical treatment in a letter, claiming that "in the doctors opinion, no further treatment was necessary.", when, in fact, it recommended further investigation. 721) When confronted with this patent lie, Savastano claimed that the letter did not mean what it said, that it was a formality, and Hammel shouldn't worry, which turned out to be the predicate of a fraud, upon which he relied to his detriment. 722) As a result, Hammel's diagnosed "frozen shoulder" did not receive treatment prescribed by both Drs. Schmaus and Savatsky for approximately two (2) years. 723) Defendant SFI attempted "to investigate the claim" of Plaintiff Hammel in response to his seeking further medical treatment by demanding an IME 56 days after the denial, with a physician known in medical and legal circles as a physician who's business was as a medical prostitute for insurance companies. 724) Plaintiff Hammel declined, as is his right, to be examined by this physician, Harry Merliss, M.D., which was sufficient excuse for SFI continuing the denial, and an accusation that Hammel was being "uncooperative" with IMEs. 725) As a result of SFI's fraud, the severe cervical stenosis noted in Hammel's MRI series of March 10, 1995 could not be brought to a neurosurgeon's attention until August 26, 1996. The neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael M. Haglund of Duke University Hospital and Medical Center, on the basis of the March, 1995 MRIs, and his examination, suggested that surgery be scheduled as quickly as possible. 726) This surgery was denied by SFI, and SFM on or about September 23, 1996. 727) The surgery was finally had, paid for by Medicaid through SSI, which recognized Hammel's disability on May 13, 1997. Surgery was performed by Dr. Michael M. Haglund at Duke University Hospital in Durham North Carolina. 728) Not only did Defendant SFI defraud and damage Plaintiff, but it also sought to hide its fraud through deceit and trickery, thus demonstrating the intention and calculation of the fraud. 729) In its continuing acts in furtherance of its fraud, with the knowledge of the objective facts and preponderance of independent medical opinions, Defendants SFI and SFM demonstrated a reckless and wanton disregard for the damages that it was inflicting on its own insured, and the consequences those damages would have on the insured Plaintiff. 730) Though Plaintiff Hammel was reduced to poverty and disability by Defendant SFI, his medically necessary surgery was finally performed under Medicaid. The delay in the spinal cord decompression has left him with severe permanent and disabling neurological injury, that makes it impossible for him to care for himself. 731) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant(s) for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant(s') conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 732) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant(s) for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, and Fremed; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BAD FAITH) 733) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 734) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are employees servants or agents of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the commission of bad faith against Plaintiff Hammel. 735) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 736) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli, Fremed, Rabin & Fremed, Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 737) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 738) SFI sought for Plaintiff Bellamente, fraudulent IMEs from Drs. Fremed and Wagle through and involving their associated P.C.s, Drs. Rabin & Fremed, and Psychiatric Associates, through payment for and/or arrangement of these IMEs. 739) The purpose and effect of the IMEs was to deny Plaintiff Bellamente necessary medical treatment resulting from the MVA, and for which SFI is responsible. 740) The emotional distress and severe mental anguish still requiring on going psychiatric care results not from the MVA itself, but from Plaintiff Bellamente being deprived of his house through foreclosure, being driven into poverty, and having his body injured permanently by defendants so as to produce permanent physical incapacity and permanent and unabating physical pain, through an outrageous, calculated betrayal of trust. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 741) The crafty and deliberate fraud of Dr. Fremed's report and and paper reviews is no accident. They were produced in an obvious and knowing conspiracy among the defendants. 742) Defendants knew, or should have known that Plaintiff had already been physically injured, and in distress enough to be in psychotherapy. The emotional distress thus inflicted becomes, therefore, even more outrageous and egregious. 743) Defendants know, or should know what the consequences have been, and persist in their conspiratorial fraud up to the present. 744) Defendants have continued their intentional infliction of emotional distress over a period of approximately four (4) years, show no signs of cessation, much less repentance. 745) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that all named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 746) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli, Fremed, Rabin, Wagle, and Psychiatric Associates, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 747) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 748) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants, their agents, servants or employees to participate in the commission of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Plaintiff Bellamente. 749) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that all named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 750) Plaintiff also demands judgment against all named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli, Fremed, Rabin & Fremed, for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 751) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 752) SFI denied Plaintiff Hammel's PIP benefits through fraud and intentional misrepresentation, and outright lies. 753) The purpose and effect of the IMEs was to deny Plaintiff Hammel necessary medical treatment resulting from the MVA, and for which SFI is responsible. 754) The emotional distress and severe mental anguish still requiring on going psychiatric care results not from the MVA itself, but from Plaintiff Hammel being forced from his residence through foreclosure, being driven into poverty, and having his body injured permanently by defendants so as to produce permanent physical incapacity and permanent and unabating physical pain, through an outrageous, calculated betrayal of trust. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with severe anxiety, depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 755) The crafty and deliberate fraud of Dr. Fremed's and paper review is no accident. It was produced in an obvious and knowing conspiracy among the defendants. 756) Defendants knew, or should have known that Plaintiff had already been physically injured. The emotional distress thus inflicted becomes, therefore, even more outrageous and egregious, and was sufficient to cause Plaintiff Hammel to seek psychological counseling in November of 1995. 757) Defendants know, or should know what the consequences have been, and persist in their conspiratorial fraud up to the present. 758) Defendants have continued their intentional infliction of emotional distress over a period of approximately four (4) years, show no signs of cessation, much less repentance. 759) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that all named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 760) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli, Fremed, and Drs. Rabin and Fremed, P.C., for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Melli, Fremed, and Rabin; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 761) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 762) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM, Melli, Fremed, and Rabin to participate in the commission of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Plaintiff Hammel. 763) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that all named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 764) Plaintiff also demands judgment against all named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 765) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 766) SFI owed Plaintiff Bellamente performance on its PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA. 767) An insurer's fiduciary duty to its insured exceeds that of merely holding the interests of its insured's as equal to its own interests. 768) One of SFI's fiduciary duties is fairly to investigate the claims of its insured. SFI failed to do this, not simply negligently, but intentionally, refusing any fair investigation. 769) In its intentional failure to so investigate, and in its termination Plaintiff's neurological and psychiatric medical benefits it has committed a tortious breach of its fiduciary duty. SEVENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 770) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 771) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Plaintiff Bellamente. 772) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 773) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI and SFM for TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 774) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly paragraphs 59-63, 152 and 183. 775) One of SFI's fiduciary duties is fairly to investigate the claims of its insured. SFI failed to do this, not simply negligently, but intentionally, refusing any fair investigation. 776) On or about September 19, 1994, through Savastano, SFI breached its fiduciary duty by improperly advising Plaintiff Bellamente that any and all claims after the MVA of September 16, 1994, (including those arising from a prior accident of August 6, 1992), were to be claimed under the claim number attached to the later accident, despite the fact that there were continuing injuries from the prior accident. By following this improperly given advice, Plaintiff Bellamente suffered the loss of coverage that was due him according to the policy. 777) Savastano (SFI) knew, or should have known that Bellamente was insured under a policy issued by SFM for the 1992 MVA, and did not, apparently make any distinction between the two companies. 778) Then, as Plaintiffs have, only within approximately the past month discovered, SFI conveyed SFM's medical documents relating to the MVA of 1992 to SFM in North Carolina in order to confuse the issue of benefits denial in collusion with SFM. 779) In this SFI and SFM have committed a compound and tortious breach of its fiduciary duty. 780) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 781) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 782) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 783) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Plaintiff Bellamente. 784) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 785) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. SEVENTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 786) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 787) SFI owed Plaintiff Hammel performance on its PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA. 788) An insurer's fiduciary duty to its insured exceeds that of merely holding the interests of its insured's as equal to its own interests. 789) One of SFI's fiduciary duties is fairly to investigate the claims of its insured. SFI failed to do this, not simply negligently, but intentionally, refusing any fair investigation. 790) In its intentional failure to so investigate and and terminate medical benefits it had committed a tortious breach of its fiduciary duty. 791) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 792) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 793) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 794) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Plaintiff Hammel. 795) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 796) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI and SFM for TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 797) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 798) SFM owed Plaintiff Bellamente performance on the PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA of August 6, 1992 at which time a policy with SFM was in force. 799) All courts have held that in any insurance policy, when there is any ambiguity of contractual language, the language of the policy must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the insured (The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations). 800) SFI and SFM have taken upon themselves to be both judge and jury by maliciously interpreting what is "reasonable" under the terms of a policy, in their arbitrary abrogation of remaining medical benefits under the SFM policy contract. 801) In so doing SFI and SFM have committed a tortious breach of contract that is the policy. 802) In so so doing, they have caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 803) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 804) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 805) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 806) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Contract against Plaintiff Bellamente. 807) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 808) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 809) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 810) SFI owed Plaintiff Bellamente performance on its PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA. 811) All courts have held that in any insurance policy, when there is any ambiguity of contractual language, the language of the policy must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the insured (The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations). 812) SFI has taken upon itself to be both judge and jury by maliciously interpreting what is "reasonable" and what is "medically necessary" treatment, in its summary denial of this Plaintiff's psychiatric and neurological medical benefits. 813) In so doing SFI has committed a tortious breach of contract that is the policy. 814) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 815) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 816) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 817) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 818) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Contract against Plaintiff Bellamente. 819) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 820) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 821) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 822) SFI owed Plaintiff Hammel performance on its PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA. 823) All courts have held that in any insurance policy, when there is any ambiguity of contractual language, the language of the policy must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the insured (The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations). 824) SFI has taken upon itself to be both judge and jury by maliciously interpreting what is "reasonable" and what is "medically necessary" treatment, in its plenary denial of Plaintiff Hammel's medical benefits. 825) In so doing SFI has committed a tortious breach of contract that is the policy. 826) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 827) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 828) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 829) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 830) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Contract against Plaintiff Hammel. 831) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 832) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI and SFM for TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 833) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 834) SFI and SFM owed Plaintiff Hammel performance on the PIP benefits of the policy for necessary medical treatment related to an MVA. 835) All courts have held that in any insurance policy, when there is any ambiguity of contractual language, the language of the policy must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the insured (The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations). 836) SFI and SFM have taken upon themselves to be both judge and jury by maliciously interpreting what is "reasonable" and what is "medically necessary" treatment, by their summary denial of medically necessary surgery for Plaintiff Hammel. 837) In so doing SFI and SFM have committed a tortious breach of contract that is the policy. 838) In so so doing, they have caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 839) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 840) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 841) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 842) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Contract against Plaintiff Hammel. 843) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 844) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. EIGHTY-NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI for TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 845) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 846) SFI owes Plaintiff Hammel performance on its settlement contract with Plaintiff, which Plaintiff signed in good faith. 847) SFI has not paid Plaintiff Hammel specified "out of pocket" expenses, to which, under the terms of the settlement contract, he is entitled. 848) In so doing SFI is still committing a tortious breach of contract that is the settlement. 849) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 850) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 851) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT) 852) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 853) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Breach of Contract against Plaintiff Hammel. 854) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 855) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT) 856) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 857) Plaintiffs had a valid contract as insurance policy with SFI, conferring on Plaintiffs contractual rights against SFI. 858) Defendant SFM knew of the existence of the contract. 859) Defendant SFM has intentionally induced SFI not to perform the contract. 860) Defendant SFM acted without justification. 861) Defendant SFM's conduct has caused actual pecuniary harm to the Plaintiffs. 862) In so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiffs in their business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as summarized in section VIII herein. 863) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFM has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 864) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT) 865) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 866) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFM combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Interference With Contract against Plaintiffs. 867) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 868) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT) 869) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 870) Plaintiffs had a valid contract as insurance policy with SFM, conferring on Plaintiffs contractual rights against SFM. 871) Defendant SFI knew of the existence of the contract. 872) Defendant SFI has intentionally induced SFM not to perform the contract. 873) Defendant SFI acted without justification. 874) Defendant SFI's conduct has caused actual pecuniary harm to the Plaintiffs. 875) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiffs in their business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as summarized in section VIII herein. 876) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 877) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT) 878) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 879) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to participate in the commission of Tortious Interference With Contract against Plaintiffs. 880) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendant for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendant's conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendant SFI has perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 881) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendant SFI for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli for TORTIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS) 882) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 883) SFI and Melli extended the tactics that SFI used in the handling of claims for Plaintiff Bellamente, avoiding depositions, procuring and submitting fabricated medical reports to an adjudicating arbitration panel that is to decide an award in a UIM dispute in New Jersey. 884) The ulterior motive was exactly the ulterior motives of SFI and SFM, when SFM took it upon itself, unbidden, to handle the claims of both Plaintiffs, and that motive is to not pay any claims, so that they might be unjustly enriched. 885) In so doing the named Defendants have committed tortious abuse of process. 886) In so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiffs in their business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 887) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI, SFM, and Melli, have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 888) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, and Melli, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendant: Melli; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS) 889) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 890) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM and/or Melli, to participate in the commission of Tortious Abuse of Process against Plaintiff Bellamente. 891) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI, SFM, and, Melli have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 892) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, and Melli, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendants SFI, SFM, Melli for TORTIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS) 893) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 894) SFI and Melli extended the tactics that SFI used in the handling of claims for Plaintiff Hammel, avoiding depositions, submitting a deliberately defective certification to the Superior Court of New Jersey, and procuring and submitting fabricated medical reports to an adjudicating arbitration panel that is to decide an award in a UIM dispute in New Jersey. The deliberately defective certification was manufactured by Miller of Melli, for the signature of Jim Zitney, at the Franklin office of SFM. 895) The ulterior motive was exactly the ulterior motives of SFI and SFM, when SFM took it upon itself, unbidden, to handle the claims of both Plaintiffs, and that motive is to not pay any claims, so that they might be unjustly enriched. 896) In so doing the named Defendants have committed tortious abuse of process. 897) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiff in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 898) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 899) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, and Melli, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendant: Melli; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS) 900) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein. 901) Two or more of the individual Defendants who are agents servants or employees of SFI combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert with two or more individual defendants who are agents, servants or employees of SFM and/or Melli, to participate in the commission of Tortious Abuse of Process against Plaintiff Hammel. 902) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI, SFM, and, Melli have perpetrated on Plaintiff for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 903) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants SFI, SFM, and Melli, for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. NINETY-NINTH through ONE HUNDRED and TWENTY-FIRST CAUSES OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for COMMON LAW FRAUD) 904) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 250-382. 905) Plaintiffs reallege causes of action ONE through TWENTY-THREE against the defendants particularized within those counts of fraud. 906) These acts of fraud have caused direct harm to Plaintiffs each in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 907) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to his business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants SFI and SFM have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 908) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants SFI and SFM for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ONE HUNDRED and TWENTY-SECOND through ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMMON LAW FRAUD) 909) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 383-502. 910) Plaintiffs reallege causes of action TWENTY-FOUR through THIRTY-FOUR against the defendants particularized within those counts of conspiracy to commit fraud. 911) These conspiracies of fraud have caused direct harm to Plaintiffs each in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 912) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 913) Plaintiff also demands judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-THIRD through ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for COMMON LAW EXTORTION) 914) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 513-547 915) Plaintiffs reallege causes of action 27, 47, 49, 51, against the defendants particularized within those counts of extortion. 916) These acts of extortion have caused direct harm to Plaintiffs each in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 917) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 918) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY-SEVENTH through ONE HUNDRED and FORTIETH CAUSES OF ACTION (Against Defendant SFI acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Savastano, Wade, Romei, Murray, Matthews, Ricklemann, Davis, Ovian, Lauria, Jones, Muoio, Nicolosi, Clougher, Rochow, Foth, Rodriguez, Barrera, Fifer, Vanbreda, Roff, Figaro, Laub, Karasik, Lavender, Gee; Defendants: Rabin, Fremed, Wagle and Psychiatric Associates; Defendant SFM acting through its agents servants and employees; its named employees: Gordon, Swann, Kelly, King, Thompson, Allen, Zitney, Amzler, for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMMON LAW EXTORTION) 919) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 513-547. 920) Plaintiffs reallege causes of action 39, 41, 43, 45, against the defendants particularized within those counts of conspiracy to commit extortion. 921) These conspiracies of extortion have caused direct harm to Plaintiffs each in his business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit, as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 922) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that named Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 923) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ONE HUNDRED and FORTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against all Defendants for TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH DUE PROCESS) 924) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 813-826. 925) All defendants have consistently and systematically sought to delay and deny both Plaintiffs' right to due process in the resolution of their initial PIP and UIM claims under the policy issued by SFI, with no justification other than unjust enrichment. 926) In so doing the named Defendants have committed tortious interference with due process. 927) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiffs in their business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 928) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 929) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ONE HUNDRED and FORTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against all Defendants for CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH DUE PROCESS) 930) Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference, each and every paragraph set forth above, as though each were fully set forth herein, particularly 813-826, 848-852. 931) Two or more of the individual Defendants combined, conspired, agreed directly or indirectly, or otherwise acted in concert to commit acts which are unlawful and in furtherance of a tortious interference with Plaintiffs' right to due process. 932) In so so doing, it has caused harm to the Plaintiffs in their business, finances, property, person, psyche and spirit as set forth in section VIII herein and included here by reference. 933) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the named Defendants for actual damages to their business, property and person; compensatory damages for pain, suffering and extreme mental anguish resulting from the Defendants' conduct; consequential damages for the seeable and unforeseeable physical incapacitations and treatment of medical sequelae; punitive and treble damages, in consideration of the heedless, wanton, and oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct that Defendants have perpetrated on Plaintiffs for a period beginning on or about May 1, 1995 and continuing to the present. 934) Plaintiffs also demand judgment against the named Defendants for attorney fees, costs of suit and such other relief as the Court deems just. ____________________________________________________________________ VIII. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES 935) Included here by reference is Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Damages and Causality. 936) Damages to Business and Property of Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts, schemes, patterns of racketeering activities, and other unlawful acts: 1. Plaintiff Hammel a) Loss of the business known as Lex*Data (William C. Hammel. d/b/a Lex*data) b) Loss of the business known as Ultra Videos (William C. Hammel, d/b/a Ultra Videos) c) Loss of valuable business property d) Loss of valuable personal property e) Loss of money interest in property at 219 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N.J. f) Loss of money interest in a classic Mercedes Benz. g) Loss of valuable business reputation and contacts. h) Loss of all future income, expected and anticipated. 2. Plaintiff Bellamente a) Loss of equity in property at 219 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N.J. b) Loss of valuable business reputation and contacts. c) Loss of income from The Conservatorship of Edna M. Clough. d) Loss of all future income, expected and anticipated. 937) Permanent physical losses of Plaintiffs as a direct result of Defendants' continuing unlawful actions in furtherance of denial and delays in medical treatment: Numerous and incapacitating sequelae, including, but not limited to: 1. Plaintiff Hammel a) Extreme vulnerability of C-cord b) Painful and weakened neck muscles c) Painful and weakened upper back and shoulder muscles. d) General muscle atrophy and weakness, most notable in abdominals, causing the already injured L-spine to be painfully deformed which is exacerbated by the weakened muscles of lumbar region. e) Extreme difficulty in walking f) Bowel and Bladder dysfunction g) Sexual dysfunction h) Loss of coordination, balance and position sense i) Great alteration in the sense of touch j) Extreme burning pain in hands k) Extreme sensitivity to cold l) Extremely diminished stamina 2. Plaintiff Bellamente a) Weakened and painful neck b) Loss of range of motion in neck c) Painful and weakened shoulders d) Periodic hand pain e) Sudden onsets of painful right deltoid spasm f) weakened and painful lumbar back g) painful mid back h) dysaesthesic left foot with loss of proprioception i) difficulty walking j) bladder dysfunction k) penile malaesthesia Continued physical therapy: Both Plaintiffs have had temporary, but no enduring results from several courses of physical therapy. Continued psychotherapy: Both Plaintiffs remain in psychotherapy as a result of Defendants' fraudulent denials and delays of medically necessary treatments and the multitudinous sequelae of those actions that grow like the roots of a tree. IX. RELIEF SOUGHT 938) Any relief from continuing racketeering and extortion activities: the prohibited acts of RICO and Hobbs, under intervention provided in 28 USC 1367, that the court can give. Plaintiffs understand that, ultimately from amendments III and XI of the constitution and by U. S., Sup. Ct. precedent, this court may not remove the Cases cited in 17), in the State of New Jersey to this Federal District Court, thus interfering with the State's right to regulation of insurance granted by 15 USC 20 (The McCarran-Ferguson Act), but Plaintiffs see no reason why Federal intervention by way of court order may not be allowed and appropriate when the actions (the how, not the what) of the Defendants' actions are in violation of US Code, and when such U.S. Code automatically has Federal District Court jurisdiction. 939) Relief in the form of $60,000,000.00 for direct and actual damages, proximately caused damages to life, limb, well being and finances of Plaintiffs stemming from Defendants' actions, as will be outlined and apportioned, future damages that will have such lifelong irreparable effect as severe pain, severe disabilities and severe mental an physical impairments and incapacitation, that permanently prohibit Plaintiffs from being self supporting, productive individuals, as well as punitive damages. BUSINESS DAMAGES PROPERTY DAMAGES PERSONAL DAMAGES actual damages consequential damages future damages PUNITIVE DAMAGES 940) Such compensatory damages, plus interest, as may be verified and claimed by the persons and entities upon whose behalf Plaintiffs also complain, by virtue of existing contractual agreements, in accordance with FRCP Rule 71; 941) Any and all interest and late payment charges accrued by debt to the Internal Revenue Service of the U. S., during the period of continuing pattern of racketeering activity, by virtue of Defendants' destruction of Plaintiffs' ability to pay the initial debt. 942) Any damages, plus interest, that may be payable and due, to the Court itself, in compensation for whatever relief the Court itself may have accorded the Plaintiffs; this, since Plaintiffs' inability to defend themselves otherwise is a direct consequence of the Plaintiffs' destitution, which is caused by the unabated insistence on a clear pattern of racketeering activity engaged in within the "enterprise" that includes claimed "insurance". 943) All Plaintiffs' Costs in this litigation, and as well, pursuant to FRCP 9(g) just compensation for the destructive and onerous work and effort that has been extorted from Plaintiffs, under physical and emotional duress, and upon Plaintiffs by Defendants' actions; Plaintiffs request special consideration from the court in a determination of attorneys' fees, by the court, in recognition of the work done, and cost of necessary tools required to act as attorneys, Pro Se. Such special damages can only be assessed at a time of judgment or settlement. 944) Restitution of all Premiums paid to Defendants for any services that Defendants have purported to provide, over any time that SFM and SFI has ever been paid for such purported insurance services, under the Collateral Source Rule. 945) And finally, any further damages of whatever kind that the Court may deem suitable, just or appropriate, to Plaintiffs, the Court, or any persons or entities upon whose behalf the Plaintiffs also complain. X. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT 946) On the basis of all the foregoing, Plaintiffs demand judgment for the stated relief, in trial by jury. XI. PLAINTIFFS' AVERMENT REGARDING RULE 11, FRCP 947) Further extant evidence and argumentation, elucidating the pattern of racketeering activity, and information which will be acquired in the process of discovery, will establish the necessary preponderance of evidence as is required by the Court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 948) In particular, with regard to Rule 11 of FRCP, Plaintiffs aver that all statements and allegations are true upon information, belief, and reasonable investigation, and further that this action is not brought with any purpose to harass or defame Defendants, and further that it is not of any nature that could be called frivolous. 949) Plaintiffs have, in good faith, attempted to balance the the necessary requirements of specificity and particularity, under Rule 9(f) of FRCP to establish sufficiency of this pleading, with the requirements of concision and directness under Rule 8(e) of FRCP, all in accordance with Rule 11 of FRCP. Respecfully submitted: William C. Hammel Alan J. Bellamente A-11 Moose Branch Road, A-11 Moose Branch Road, Sweetwater Apartments 1A, Sweetwater Apartments 8A, Robbinsville, NC 28771 Robbinsville, NC 28771 (828) 479-1547 (828) 479-1547 /S/ /S/ ------------------------------- ------------------------------ William C. Hammel Alan J. Bellamente DATE: February 15, 2000 DATE: February 15, 2000
Email me, Bill Hammel at