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