Did Chip Merlin discover the slabberator mentioned in the scheme? That I don’t know; but, he definitely happened upon some interesting information — cross posted below — and the title of his related postposes a very interesting question: Are Computerized Estimates by Pilot Catastrophe Adjusters Low Because of a Special Database?. SLABBED tags on to the end of Merlin’s post with comments linking the Rigsby qui tam.
Some Mondays are more interesting than others. When I go to conferences with adjusters, I make a point to ask about “in the street” information on insurers I am litigating against. The information and leads to witnesses or evidence are often extremely valuable to my clients. Adjusters know when the orders from claims management are wrong and aimed at paying less than what is fairly owed. Most want to disclose facts about insurers that wrongly demand underpayment.
A current problem regarding the disclosure of such activities is that catastrophe firms and insurers usually make the individual catastrophe adjusters sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements preventing whistle blowing from ever taking place. These agreements should be illegal. Can you imagine any reason society should tolerate contracts that prevent employees from disclosing improper claims conduct? What if the mafia could enforce such agreements? Yet, that is largely why Renfroe sued the Rigsby sisters–to shut them up about State Farm’s multiple engineering reports indicating excluded flood rather than covered wind caused damage to State Farm’s customers. (emphasis added @ SLABBED) Continue reading “Did Chip Merlin find a slabberator? Are Computerized Estimates by Pilot Catastrophe Adjusters Low Because of a Special Database? (with a Rigsby qui tam tag on from SLABBED)”
“Sugarcoated” the news was not; so, I’m guessing the “right people” took note of Sam Friedman’s View from the Pressbox:
There is a phrase in journalism called “burying the lead,” meaning you fail to put the most important part of the news story right up in the first paragraph. When reporters do this, it’s just poor or lazy writing. But when sources are guilty of this sin in their press releases, it’s called “spin”–putting the best face on bad news. That’s the case with the latest industry-wide financial results reported by ISO and PCI.
Indeed, the two groups chose to “lead” with reassurances that the industry remains in good financial shape, boasting that insurers have $437.1 billion in policyholder surplus, $554.4 billion in loss and loss adjustment expense reserves to cover claims that already were filed, and another $201.5 billion in unearned premium reserves to cover losses arising during policies in effect on March 31.
It’s hard to spin a $1.3 billion first-quarter loss—the worst results it has recorded in more than 20 years, the Insurance Services Office said. The numbers are not hard to believe; but, whether they tell the whole story is an entirely different matter. Continue reading “…and did the chickens come home to roost or is the rooster crowing off shore? P&C reports 1.3 billion 1Q loss”
Chalk it up to the visit of one of my “grand dogs” but cats of no kind were on my mind as I was reading the comment SLABBED reader CLS posted on the Allstate Finance Board:
One could say I was barking up the wrong tree with the few words I changed:
Dell State Farm, Nationwide, Allstate, USAA, and employees KNEW that they were NOT ALLOWED to sell cameras bill wind damge to the National Flood Insurance Program UNDER the [WYO] CONTRACT that COVERED Dell’s the Company’s sales and claims handling of the GOVERNMENT SALES Flood Insurance Program…
Simply stated, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. For example, you can cat a hedge or hedge a cat.
There is also more than one way an insurer can commit fraud:
Justice Pierce: I’m giving you – the example is 95 percent of the home is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other five percent and you know that. Does your interpretation of the word “sequence” mean you pay zero?
Mr. Landau: YES, your Honor.
Just change a few words and the story is the same.
When your interpretation of the word “sequence” means you pay zero on claims of wind damage and your policy excludes flood, then the hurricane reinsurance you purchase doesn’t transfer any risk – and that is NOT ALLOWED. Not in any “sequence”.