This narrative account of State Farm’s handling of Plaintiff Glenda Show’s claim is taken directly from the RICO statement submitted by Provost Umphrey and reported in Part 1 of this series of posts, this narrative tells the story well but represents only one side of the legal argument.
On August 29, 2005, Plaintiff Glenda Shows was a named insured under a State Farm FP-7955 policy, identified as number 24-00-3138-5, covering her residence at 4010 S. Shore Drive, Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Plaintiff’s FP-7955 policy provided coverage limits of (Coverage A) Dwelling $216,700; (Coverage A) Dwelling Extension $21,670; (Coverage B) Personal Property $162,525; and (Coverage C) Loss of Use, Actual Loss Sustained. Plaintiff’s FP-7955 policy provided additional coverage under endorsement OPT ID, with coverage limits of $43,340.00.
On August 29, 2005, Plaintiff’s residence was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiff presented a claim to State Farm under her policy number 24-00-3138-5. According to Forensic’s records, on September 29, 2005, State Farm assigned Plaintiff’s property inspection to Forensic. According to Forensic’s records, on October 7, 2005, Plaintiff’s property was inspected by Manon, an engineer then employed by Forensic. The inspection report dated October 19, 2005, concluded: “the primary and predominant cause of loss of the residence most likely was due to tornado wind action before the storm surge took place.”
Upon information and belief, this initial report prepared by Manon was delivered by U.S. mail to State Farm and Renfroe.
Five (5) days later, on or about October 24, 2005, in furtherance of the Inspection Phase of Defendants’ Racketeering Scheme, State Farm sent a denial of coverage letter to Plaintiff by U. S. mail citing as a basis for denial of Plaintiff’s claim, the ACC provision and water damage exclusion in Plaintiff’s FP-7955 policy.
Following Lecky King’s “firing” of Forensic on October 17, 2005, and the King – Kochan meeting thereafter, in furtherance of the Spoliation Phase of the Racketeering Scheme, State Farm and Forensic acting through Kelly covertly conducted a second inspection of Plaintiff’s property on November 14, 2005, and drafted a substitute report which altered the finding that tornadic wind caused the loss. In pertinent part, Kelly’s altered report stated: “It is the opinion of FAEC that the destruction of the house was predominately [sic] caused by those forces associated with the rising storm surge.” Forensic’s second inspection report, altering the conclusion that tornadic wind caused Plaintiff’s loss, was signed by Kelly and Forbes, Forensic employees. In furtherance of the Defendants’ Racketeering Scheme, Kelly’s report was addressed and transmitted by U.S. Mail on January 4, 2006, to Ron Howell, an employee of Renfroe Company and an adjuster hired by King and State Farm.
On or about June 15, 2006, Plaintiff attended a mediation in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, sponsored by Insurance Commissioner George Dale. Prior to Ms. Shows’ mediation, Phillip Davis, a Renfroe employee, in furtherance of the Deceptive/Coercive Offers Phase of Defendants’ Racketeering Scheme, contacted her by telephone and requested that he be allowed to view her property. Ms. Shows agreed.
Mr. Davis visited Ms. Shows at her destroyed home site upon information or belief on or about May 24, 2006. At this time, Mr. Davis informed Ms. Shows that he was her new adjuster and that he would be at her mediation. Mr. Davis arrived at her destroyed home site with an engineering report dated January 2006. Ms. Shows, noticing the date, remarked to Mr. Davis that her claim was denied in October of 2005 and thus the report he possessed could not have been used as the basis for the denial. Mr. Davis did not offer a response. Mr. Davis did, however, press Ms. Shows as to the dollar amount she was seeking for her damages, and he requested that she allow him to see the privately-commissioned engineering report she had obtained for use at the mediation. Never during this encounter, nor in his phone call prior to coming to her home site, did Mr. Davis inform Ms. Shows that two reports, one finding wind damage and one finding water, were created for her claim. Upon information and belief, Mr. Davis and his supervisors and colleagues were aware that two engineering reports had been created for Ms. Shows property, yet, utilizing the mails and wires and other methods of obstructing justice, they concealed this fact from her.
Upon information and belief, prior to mediation of the Plaintiff’s claim, Kelly’s inspection report was transmitted by U.S. mail or wire to Ron Howell, an employee of Renfroe Company and to Lecky King at State Farm. At the mediation, Plaintiff produced a spiral bound volume of self-compiled evidence supporting her wind damage claim. Plaintiff’s materials included an aerial photograph depicting the path of a tornado passing over her home.
On information and belief, State Farm and Renfroe employees at the mediation, pursuant to the Deceptive/Coercive Offers Phase of Defendants’ Racketeering Scheme, followed a pre-arranged script and purposefully ignored Plaintiff’s evidence. Specifically, Phillip Davis, a Renfroe employee, was again asked by Ms. Shows at her mediation how the report Renfroe and State Farm used at the mediation, created in January of 2006, could have been utilized to make the determination to deny her claim in October of 2005. Mr. Davis and his colleagues again declined to inform Ms. Shows that two engineering reports had been created for her property. Instead, based upon a fraudulent report and a fraudulent mediation proces, Renfroe and State Farm employees entered into a written agreement with Ms. Shows in which she accepted the totally inadequate amount of $59,000 for her hurricane damages. None of the documents Ms. Shows was required to sign, or that were delivered to her via U.S. mail prior to or after her mediation that pertained to the agreement, informed her that two engineering reports were created for her property.
Had Ms. Shows known of the Inspection, Spoliation and/or Deceptive-Coercive Offers Phases of Defendants’ Racketeering Scheme, she would not have accepted this amount, and any purported release executed by Plaintiff at the mediation was procured by fraud and is void. In furtherance of the RICO Schemes outlined herein, the October 19, 2005, inspection report was never disclosed to Plaintiff. Moreover, pursuant to State Farm and George Dale’s “reevaluation” program subsequent to Hurricane Katrina, Ms. Shows was sent a letter by State Farm, upon information and belief in April of 2007, notifying her that she was eligible for reevaluation of her claim because her property was reduced to a slab. But nowhere in this letter sent by State Farm, delivered via the U.S. mail, was Ms. Shows informed that two engineering reports were created for her property; nor was Ms. Shows informed that the engineer who initially determined that the cause of loss to her property was “due to tornado wind action before the storm surge took place” was fired by the Enterprise.
Evidence of the October 19, 2005, inspection report and the details surrounding the Racketeering Scheme were first discovered in 2007 when subpoenaed documents obtained from Nellie Williams and Forensic were reproduced, printed and reviewed. The documents obtained include a draft report showing Kelly’s alterations in progress. As a result of the Racketeering Scheme, State Farm denied and withheld available coverage benefits of up to $385,235.00 under Plaintiff’s policy.