k

Updated May 03, 2004

From: Cyber Vigilante

For previous editions go to:   http://www.insurancejustice.com/newsletter.html

From: The Insurer Crime Outline <kana@fcol.com>
To: <dont12go@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000  08:06 Thompson

------------------------------------------------------------------
We Urge You to Forward This Newsletter to Anyone Who Might Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insurer Crime Outline
     eXposing America's Bandit Industry
==============================

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Please visit our site at http://www.insurancejustice.com

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"You kill people in many ways." 
    Sara Howard, Allstate adjuster who took her life last August
due to job pressures.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

GET THEM BY THE BALLS AND THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS WILL FOLLOW

=====================================

A note from our correspondent, HGP

ALERT! Northridge Victims of Allstate

I have been unable to confirm the presence of any Allstate representatives
at the hearing held by the CA Senate Insurance Committee at Granada
Hills High School on May 10.

But some of you might already know that lobbyists from Allstate have
been haunting the halls of the CA Assembly ever since.

These people are demanding to discuss the specifics of each case
brought before the committee hearing. Details can not be released
unless the people who testified sign a release.

Before you think of signing a release remember that one of your members
has been stalked by Allstate because of her protests about mistreatment
by an Allstate representative. It was a situation that her lawyer
described as "abhorrent".

Last week the stalking escalated to a dangerous level. The matter
is in the hands of the police and the FBI.

Don't think that you will be immune from retaliation and take sensible
steps to protect yourself. Advice from law enforcement officials
follows:

Keep a camera with you at all times and take photographs of any suspicious
characters around your house. Surveillance might not be as obvious
as someone sitting in a car outside your home. It could be someone
posing as a realtor, a new jogger you do not recognize, or people
posing as workmen or inspectors trolling the neighborhood for business.
If you talk to these people try to get a business card or some identification
that you can turn over to the police. You can do follow up calls
on your own, but be immediately alert if the party on the other end
is uncooperative.

Keep the camera with you in the car and take photographs of any drivers
who behave inappropriately, following you too closely or making dangerous
maneuvers designed to frighten you.

Ask your neighbors to keep an eye out and keep their cameras and
vid cams handy.

If you have any law enforcement people living on your street, they
can be especially helpful. Keep them posted on any activity and ask
for any written guidelines they might have.

Do an immediate dialback if you get any odd phone calls and have
that service on your phone system. Record the numbers and forward
to the phone company. Always keep your recorder on when talking to
someone you don't know. People can be identified by voice patterns
when forensic scientists have tapes to work with.

Above all, remember who you are dealing with. The people at the Assembly
are out of the same mold as the lobbyists who were there constantly
while Propositions 30 and 31 were being hammered out. In a voter
referundum designed to defeat these measures, $50 million was shelled
out by the insurance industry to flood the media with advertising.
If you have any doubts about about what you are dealing with, remember
this statement overhead at the CA Assembly:

"The total key to everything we do from now on regarding what we
do with the governor and Democrats is going to be based on dollars.
The message we're going to send is 'You will either leave us the
hell alone, or you better have pockets so deep you won't have room
for your balls.'"

--A Sacramento insurance industry insider speaking about Propositions
30 and 31, quoted in Smart's Insurance Bulletin 12/10/99

HGP

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Was just filed against Commissioner Quackenbush of CA by attorney
Mark Brifman.  I'll have it posted under http://www.insurancejustice.com/mandamus.html
when I get the chance certainly by tomorrow night. It's in Word format
and Word 97 doesn't convert to HTML properly.  Therefore, the link
mentioned above Will have a Word format doc to download immediately.
HTML will come later.  Just put http://www.insurancejustice.com/mandamus.doc
 in your browser or click on it if it's highlighted and you should
download the writ.

Well, it won't upload for some reason.  Rotten software, rotten server,
rotten computer,  who knows.  I'll try again later.

Okay, change that. I got it working. I hate Windows.. I hate Windows..
I hate Windows..

Well, it uploaded but it doesn't download as a pure Word doc. I'm
getting wierd symbols. Sometimes this stuff will drive you nuts.

Got the file fixed and now it won't upload again. I think I just
don't have enough memory in my system for all the stuff I have to
run. Sometimes I Really get tired of all this.  I'll try again tomorrow.
 Maybe Gary at allstateinsurancesucks.com will upload it.  He has
better hardware and software than this creaking crap I am working
with.  Trying to load Word, a HTML Editor, and my Groupmail program
on top of all my resident programs I use, seems to be really killing
it lately.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

JUDYDOC WINS A POINT

How UNUM Insurance Tries to Turn Physical Diseases into "Mental Problems"
in Order to Save Money
================================================

United States District Court District of Massachusetts Judy Morris,
M.D., Plaintiff v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant
Civil Action No. 99-30200-FHF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER May 15, 2000 FREEDMAN,
S.J..

This is one of two cases filed in this Court by Dr. Judy Morris ("Morris")
against Unum Life Insurance Company of America ("Unum") seeking to
recover long-term insurance benefits for the time period Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome ("CFS") purportedly rendered her disabled from her
position as an emergency room physician.  Morris alleges that UNUM
violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12181-12189 ("Title III") and, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a),
through its claims process, by employing a policy of classifying
her and others with CFS as mentally disabled.  Morris claims that
CFS is a physical disability, but that Unum utilized the mental-disability
classification to limit her coverage to two years under the policy
terms, as opposed to the unlimited coverage due her for a physical
disability.  Unum moves to dismiss Morris's claims.

In reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
must "accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint, construe
all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the plaintiffs, and
determine whether the complaint, so read, limns facts sufficient
to justify recovery on any cognizable theory of the case." Beddall
v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 137 F. 3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998)
(citing Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F. 2d 13,16 (1st
Cir. 1989)).

Title III provides that:

No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability
in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates
a place of public accommodation.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

Denying individuals the opportunity to benefit from the goods, services,
privileges, advantages or accommodations of an entity because of
their disability constitutes impermissible discrimination.  See 42
U.S.C. § 12182(b); Carparts Distrib. Center, Inc. v. Automotive wholesaler's
Assoc. Of New England, Inc., 37 F. #d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1994).  Carparts
made clear that Titles III's application extends beyond simply granting
the disabled access to physical places; rather, it requires a place
of public accommodation to provide the same services to the disabled
as it provides to those who are not.  See Carparts, 37 F. 3d at 19-20;
Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F. 3d 28, 32-33( 2d cir.
1999).  Title III applies to insurance companies and the services
they provide in the same manner as it applies to any other place
of public accommodation.  See Carparts, 37 F. 3d at 19-20. the Court
recognizes other circuits' disagreement with Carparts but finds their
reasoning unpersuasive.

The Court take particular issue with the Six Circuit's en banc opinion
in Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 121 F. 3d 1006, 1014
(1997).  In Parker, the Sixth Circuit limited Title III's application
to physical places and, in doing so, criticized the First Circuit
for failing to take note of the principle of noscitur a sociis -
failing to interpret questionable or doubtful words in the context
of the words surrounding them.  See id.  It emphasized that despite
the First Circuit's focus on travel services, shoe repair services,
accountant and attorney's offices as well as insurance offices, these
establishments nonetheless were physical places that provide services
on the premises, and a fortiori Congress could only have intended
Title III to cover a "physical place where services may be obtained
and nothing more." Id.


The Sixth Circuit, however, failed to consider factors weighing against
limiting Title III's application to physical places alone.  First,
42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) begins the definition of public accommodation
by providing a list of "entities," rather than "places," that are
considered "places of public accommodation." Second, 42 U.S. C. §
12181(7) continues on to provide a broad and extensive list of specific
and general categories of businesses, services, and places, see id.,
arguably intended to cover all possible offenders of the statute's
purpose, "to bring individuals with disabilities into the economic
and social mainstream of American life." See H.R. Rep. No. 101-485,
pt 2, at 99 (1990) reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 382.  Third,
42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A) defines specific prohibitions under Title
III: Imposing "eligibility criteria" to screen out the disabled and
failing to modify policies and practices that do the same thing;
but requiring the removal of architectural barriers to allow physical
access.  The Sixth Circuit's holding that Title III applies only
to physical places open to public access, renders all but the third
prohibition mere surplusage.

In addition, holding that protection to those with disabilities extends
only to physical structures or services provided within these structures
creates absurd results clearly unintended by Congress.  Many business
and service establishments listed as public accommodations in 42
U.S.C. § 12181(7) provide services in locations other than their
premises.  For example, pharmacies and restaurants often have delivery
services; gas and service stations provide towing services; hospitals
and health care services provide ambulance services; and banks, attorneys,
and accountants often provide services outside of their offices.
 Under the physical place with public-access-only interpretation,
a restaurant or pharmacy with a delivery service cannot lawfully
deny a disabled person service at the restaurant or pharmacy.  But
the same establishment could lawfully refuse to deliver a meal or
prescription to the home of a wheelchair-bound patron.  Similarly,
a tow truck driver could lawfully refuse to jump-start a disabled
patron's car on the street, but not if the patron rolled into the
station's premises.  An ambulance could lawfully refuse to pick up
an AIDS patient dying of pneumonia.  A lawyer meeting a client at
home could lawfully refuse to perform the necessary services because
the client is quadripelegic, so long as she did so before she left
the client's house or returned to her office.  Because Congress listed
many service, sales and rental establishments, including insurance
offices, which provide goods and services in diverse locations other
than their primary place of business, the Court concludes that Congress
intended public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) to cover
more than simply physical places.  See Carparts, 37 F. 3d at 20.
 As a result, the Court follows the First Circuit's Carparts opinion,
and concludes that Title III of the ADA applies not only to the offices
of insurance companies but also to the services they provide.  See
id.

Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 12201 carves out of the
ADA a specific safe harbor provision for some practices of insurers
stating that:

Titles I through IV of [the ADA] shall not be construed to prohibit
or restrict ---(1) an insurer, hospital or medical service company,
health maintenance organization, or any agent, or entity that administers
benefit plans, or similar organizations from underwriting risks,
classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on
or not inconsistent with State law.  42 U.S. C. § 12201(c)(1).  Several
courts have interpreted this safe harbor provision to preclude recovery
under Title III of the ADA by plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination
based on disparate coverage for different disabilities written into
the insurance policy.  See, e.g., McNeil v. Time Ins. Co., 205 F.
3d 179, 188-89 (5th Cir. 2000) ("Mr. McNeil has not alleged that
Time interfered with his son's ability to enjoy that policy as it
was written and offered to the non-disabled public.") ($10,000 limitation
on AIDS coverage in first two years of policy permissible); Ford
v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F. 3d 601, 608-10 (3d Cir. 1998) (no
parity required between coverage of mental and physical disability).
 The courts reason that the ADA prohibits only disparate treatment
of those with disabilities and because the policy is offered to disabled
and non-disabled alike, no violation occurs.  See McNeil, 205 f.
3d at 188-89; Ford, 145 F. 3d at 609 (citing Krauel v. Iowa Methodist
Med. Ctr., 95 F. 3d 674, 678 (8th cir. 1996) and Parker v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 121 D. 3d 1006, 1015-16(6th Cir. 1997)).  the general
consensus provision, congress intended to preserve the essence of
the insurance industry, allocating risk through "underwriting," "classifying,"
or "administering," and deciding what coverage limitations and terms
to write into their policies.  The Court finds no precedent, however
to suggest expanding this limitation beyond "underwriting," "classifying,"
or "administering" risks, and holds that this exception does not
allow insurers to discriminate against the disabled in the provision
of any of their other services.  See generally Carparts, 37 F. 3d
at 20 (Congress intended the disabled to benefit from "goods, services,
privileges and advantages" available to the general population).

While Morris's brief lacks clarity, her complaint and reasoning at
oral argument make apparent the basis of her claims.  Here, Morris
alleges that Unum treated her differently in its claims process,
all because she claimed disability based on CFS.  Specifically, Morris
claims that Unum intentionally conducted an inadequate investigation
of her case, harassed her, engaged in intentionally malicious claims
tactics, and deliberately misdiagnosed her CFS as a mental disability
in order to limit her benefits to the two-year mental disability
period.  She claims that Unum formulated a policy of treating CFS
claimants differently in the claims process than other claimants
and denied her claims in accordance with that policy.  Morris asserts
that Unum intentionally implemented the policy of mischaracterization
to take advantage of, and profit from, CFS claimants' lower energy
and consequent inability to mount a sustained battle to recover rightful
benefits.  The Court finds that Morris's allegations of mischaracterizations
do not relate to underwriting, classifying, or administering risks
and concludes that would be permitted under the safe harbor provision
of 42 U.S. C. §12201.  Because Unum's claims process falls under
the goods or services that it provides to all of its customers, the
Court concludes that application of the claims process in an intentionally
discriminatory manner violates Title III.

Consequently, Morris asserts a claim upon which relief may be granted
when she alleges that Unum treated her differently in its claims
process because she had CFS.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES Unum's
motion to dismiss Morris's claims under Title III of the ADA.  Because
the Court views the allegations supporting Morris's claims of discrimination
to be based upon substantially the same factual occurrences as those
involved in her ERISA claims against Unum, the Court, of its own
accord and in the interest of judicial economy, CONSOLIDATES the
two cases (Civil Action No. 99-30200 and Civil Action No. 98-30204).

It is so ordered.

Frank H. Freedman Senior United States District Judge

CYBERCOMMENTS: Like nearly everyone we know, Judydoc is fighting
her own legal battle Pro Se, without a lawyer.  Either they can't
interest a lawyer or are too broke. There is something Seriously
wrong with our civil justice system.  You have access to justice
if you are a criminal, since you get a court-appointed lawyer.  But
if your life is destroyed by an insurer and you can't afford or interest
a lawyer, you are out of luck.  And most courts give short shrift
to Pro Se litigants. 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

HMO BLUES

Chicago HMO May Take Responsibility for Doctor's Oversight

CHICAGO, May 22 (BestWire:Excerpt) - Chicago HMO, a unit of United
HealthCare of Illinois, could become one of the first managed-care
companies to be held liable for negligent care administered by one
of its member doctors.

Illinois' Supreme Court ruled that Chicago HMO may be held liable
for "institutional negligence" and be held accountable the misdiagnosis
of plaintiff Sheila Jones' three-month-old daughter who became permanently
disabled as a result in January of 1991, according to a court document.
Jones has filed a medical malpractice suit against Chicago HMO and
one its doctors, Robert A. Jordan, the document said.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

A NOTE FROM ONE OF OUR CALIFORNIA CORRESPONDENTS

Quackenbush showed up for the Calif. Senate hearing this AM, read
a prepared statement that was merely a recap of the lies about his
extortion "fund" scandal and then said that he was being "ambushed"
for political purposes and fled the hearing along with all his DOI
directors.  He left two low level female employees who had been instructed
to answer no questions regarding DOI's procedures or actions.  I've
never seen a more cowardly or dishonest performance by a public official.

The Chair of the Senate Insurance Committee is continuing without
him and promised that she'd subpoena him and his directors for a
future hearing in a week or so.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

ANOTHER OF OUR CORRESPONDENTS ASKED TO POST THIS

People the time is now to support this site I am rolling in debt
but I am going to support this site with $20.00 yearly donation,
more if I can in the future. I have never written a letter like this
but I know the work Jim does here helps people in many ways, however
it does cost money to keep a web site like this going. I takes a
lot of time also, hundreds of hours, but Jim is not asking for payment
of his time only funds to keep the site going, growing and keep the
information flowing. This is the new foundation of free speech but
it is up to us the individuals who read this forum, get information
from it, and find it informative to choose if we will support efforts
like this or we will rely on the same sludge put in front of us by
the big media everyday. It's up to us.

Jims help has gone way past posting information on the wrongdoings
of corporations, it goes much further then this.  I know he has personally
reached out to make sure people got proper representation, lawyers
get information they need and most importantly when people need someone
to reach out to personally because of a loss he writes them and does
whatever is in his power to help.

So this is a chance for us who read this letter and use the web site
to contribute whatever we possibly can to keep this flow of good
information alive. No one else will do this, it is up to us individually
to support ideas and efforts such as this. Actually that is the best
part, we get to see something grow that may make a real difference.
Companies count on operations like this to burn out, run out of funds
and they continue to endure by getting away with the same old dirty
tricks. Jim has fought tooth and nail to keep this information alive..
Now we need to help to make this site work even better.

You might have seen where Jim has posted that does accept contributions
to help, this was a huge step for this man to even put this up. He
feels that the pain and suffering caused to the people hurt is enough,
that he can't ask injured people for a few dollars. He is right in
some cases $10.00 -$20.00 is a lot of money, to those injured it
is, some maybe able to add a zero to that and it won't hurt, but
to others its a phone bill, food money, but the reason people are
having these problems is the very reason this site lives.

Lets do what we can to keep this going and do it today, because this
thought will fade if we do not sit right down and write the check,
so many other things enter our lives daily. This is a good man doing
good things and as the world turns it takes money to make the information
flow.

If people are worried about accounting I am sure a donor page could
be put up with your name or a code to show the funds were received
so no one could call this a scam or a for profit operation.

This is the future, this is how individuals can be heard and issues
important to you pushed to the front, and Jim is good at it. His
research is excellent but the sources to get credible information
cost money, as does the web space to set this up, software, hardware
etc.. Were not going to make Jim rich here but by a donation we are
going to let him do what Jim does best research the information we
find interesting, useful and in certain cases life saving.

Please as one who has been helped along, not to a conclusion but
helped, I am asking the people who read this please lets support
this site, today and yearly, lets make May the Month of reckoning,
and let this guy fly. Then we all will be part of this site in a
small way, but with the power of a group. Its a new day and a new
way, something the corporations never dreamed of. It makes free speech
have real meaning again. Thanks

G leffler

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

MAKE A CLAIM, GET A PAIN

http://www.andersonkill.com/policyholder/continue.html

Good article pointing out that property insurers now dispute Every
claim.  Yes, every.  Be prepared if you make a claim.  I especially
like this quote:

'Indeed, insurance companies have even seized control of the language
of the "adjustment" process: a policyholder claiming more than it
is owed is deemed to have committed "fraud," where an insurance company
which pays less than it owes has simply engaged in good "negotiating."'

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

PRO SE BLUES

Turns out the guy who is RICOing Crooked Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush
of CA is a Pro Se litigant: i.e. suing without a lawyer.  Even though
one Should have the right to sue without a lawyer, going Pro Se,
or in Forma Pauperis (too poor for a lawyer) that is Not the reality.
 The legal system is Very negative about citizen suits, even when
the citizens can't get a lawyer any other way than doing it themselves.

Pro Se litigants are usually squashed by judges, who normally won't
even hear their case or respond to it.  Then they get abused by lawyers.
It's really unfair.  No one in the legal profession likes them or
assists them.

And what stinks is the lawyers won't Touch civil RICO, which is why
so many citizens are going it alone.  Lincoln didn't go to law school,
but anyone who teaches themselves law these days usually gets short
shrift from impatient judges more interested in the form than the
substance of justice.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

GREETINGS MR. QUACKENBUSH

In the spirit of disdain for crooked pols, one of our readers sent
Mr. Quackenbush a nasty greeting card. Fine idea.  His email address
is

cquackenbush2000@yahoo.com

And here is his card. If my mailer chops it up, you'll have to stitch
it together (no spaces)

http://www.aol.americangreetings.com/aspickup.pd?i=57725699&m=5394&rr=y&source=aol425

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

SCREWING THE RANK AND FILE

CYBERCOMMENTS: I've said this a long time and the Republican below
agrees with me.  The Republican Party needs to stop swilling at the
Insurer's Trough.

http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/comment/20000521/t000048144.html

Sunday, May 21, 2000

Insurers Are Unrestrained, Thanks to GOP Government: A Republican
blames his party for the state mess exemplified by Commissioner Quackenbush.

By CHRISTOPHER E. RUSSELL

As an attorney who deals with consumer issues, it is clear to me
that there will never be any real oversight of the insurance industry
here in California as long as the public continues to elect Republicans
to the position of state insurance commissioner.

The Republican Party has been in the back pocket of the insurance
industry for more than 25 years in California. Practically any legislation
that has been proposed during that time period that could have helped
consumers regulate the insurance industry has been voted down consistently
by Republicans occupying either the governor's office, an Assembly
seat or a state Senate position.

We are all consumers, whether we be Republicans or Democrats. The
insurance industry is out of control here in California, as is shown
by the recent revelations regarding Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush
and his relationship with that industry.

I assure you that a significant number of those who are victims of
the Northridge earthquake were also Republicans who voted the party
line in 1994 when Quackenbush was elected. However, earthquakes don't
damage only homes occupied by Democrats. They also may be the same
individuals who voted against Proposition 30, the most recent attempt
at legislation proposed to regulate an insurance industry that does
not want to be regulated. They did so because their party asked them
to vote against Proposition 30.

The recent revelations regarding Quackenbush and the insurance industry
should make all consumers, Republicans and Democrats alike, come
to the realization that legislation proposed, be it in Sacramento
or by the initiative process, intended to regulate the insurance
industry, is good for all of us.

The real story of the Quackenbush revelations is that the insurance
industry is truly the bully on the block, and it gets away with such
conduct because it has the money to do so.

The financial stakes are high. State Farm alone has assets in excess
of the revenue generated by each state in 1999 except New York and
California.

Remember Proposition 103, passed in 1988? The industry is still spending
millions fighting that pro-consumer law. I would hope that the people
of the state keep this in mind the next time they have an opportunity
to vote on legislation that helps consumers regulate the insurance
industry.

A simple rule of thumb: If an advertisement for or against proposed
legislation states "paid for by insurers," vote the position opposite
of what the advertisement is requesting that you vote.

- - -

Christopher E. Russell Is a Registered Republican Who Lives in Lake
Forest and Practices Law in Newport Beach

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

KEEPING AN EYE ON YOUR CLASS ACTION LAWYER

CYBERCOMMENTS: Advice from someone who has observed the screwing
of the Sherman vs Allstate class members:

Mainly people need to read their retainer agreement and line out
what they don't want to agree to, such as allowing the lawyer to
decide when, if and how much to settle for, and writing in provisions
they want to be in their agreement, such as attorney(s) agree(s)
to provide weekly written reports of progress or events of case and
a monthly running statement of account showing all expenses incurred
to be charged to client.

Usually class action suit representation agreements are so long and
complex people get lost in the verbiage or don't even try to read
them.  If a lawyer wants clients bad enough he/she will take a call
from a potential cash cow and explain the agreement or offer to meet
with the potential clients of the class action.  Unfortunately most
attorneys just gather up as many clients as they can, there being
strength of persuasion in numbers alone, and then do nothing of substance
-- or expense -- until they get to the courthouse steps where the
insurance company offers to settle for what they want to pay and
the attorney accepts, takes his cut off the top and leaves the scraps
for the clients.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

THE FRAUD OF TORT REFORM

May 15, 2000 Emily Gottlieb or Joanne Doroshow at (212) 267-2801

http://ccair.org/releases/corp51500.html

Corporate Front Groups Exposed in Damning Editorial: Defense Lawyers
Outspend Trial Lawyers Trial lawyers whose campaign contributions
have been the subject of bogus "reports" by corporate front groups
called, "Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse," ("CALA"), "Lawsuit Abuse
Watch" or similar-sounding names (they are part of a national network
now in 18 states), should read the remarkable May 12, 2000, editorial
by Dan Radmacher, editorial page editor of the Charleston Gazette,
slamming a CALA study done recently in West Virginia. This CALA "report"
was refuted by Gazette reporter Larry Messina. Excerpts follow (including
tips on conducting such research):

"CITIZENS Against Lawsuit Abuse, a group that wants to make it harder
to sue corporations and doctors who injure or kill people, wanted
the public to believe that the lawyers who bring those lawsuits were
trying to buy Tuesday's Supreme Court election. If it were left up
to the reporting talents of the Charleston Daily Mail's Chris Stirewalt,
CALA's message would have gone unchallenged. In an article that appeared
the Saturday before the election, Stirewalt essentially regurgitated
a CALA report that said more than half of all of the large individual
contributions to three of the four candidates came from "personal
injury interests.".

Reporters, of course, are supposed to do more than rewrite press
releases from special-interest groups. Gazette reporter Lawrence
Messina waded through financial disclosure statements released before
the primary election. He identified all of the contributors, including
those who gave less than $250 and weren't required to disclose their
occupation. He then grouped them by categories: doctors, business
owners and executives, plaintiff firms, defense firms, general practice
law firms that do both defense and plaintiff work, Political Action
Committees and a few others. Messina was able to identify the occupations
of donors providing 95 percent of the $ 467,000 contributed to the
four candidates. To categorize a law firm as defense or plaintiff,
he used the West Legal Directory, the Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory
and his own personal knowledge gained from covering West Virginia
courts for six years.

His analysis yielded completely different results from CALA's. .Defense
lawyers contributed nearly $ 100,000 - just under one-quarter of
the total. The trial lawyers that CALA worried were out to buy the
election contributed just under $ 50,000 - about half the amount
spent by lawyers who defend doctors and businesses against lawsuits..

Why was Messina's analysis so different from CALA's? Partly because
Messina painstakingly identified the occupation of those who gave
less than $ 250. But that alone can't explain the discrepancy. .
The only conclusion I can draw is that CALA used an overly broad
definition of "trial lawyer" to inflate its numbers.

Messina's analysis clearly indicates that if anyone was trying to
buy this election, it was the defense bar and the businesses and
doctors those lawyers defend, not trial lawyers who represent injured
people. Don't hold your breath waiting for CALA to raise that alarm.
For all of this organization's claimed desire to protect the integrity
of the judicial system, it has shown over and over that its true
goal is to limit access to the court system to protect corporations
and doctors from being held responsible for destructive actions."

======================================

FROM WSTLA

The Truth about Insurance and Litigation Costs

The U.S. economy is booming, corporate profits and executive salaries
are at record levels, most injured Americans do not file lawsuits,
liability costs for businesses are minimal, and the premium-gouging
practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed. With
these facts in mind, it may be hard to understand why "tort reform"
remains on the national agenda.

One major reason is the large number of industry-sponsored "think-tanks,"
PR and lobbying firms driving this cruel effort. They are backed
by multi-millions of dollars from the same insurance, tobacco, pharmaceutical,
oil, HMO and other corporate interests wanting to escape liability
for wrongdoing. Their message, which often focuses on anecdotal "oddball"
cases, has created a false perception that the system is overflowing
with frivolous consumer lawsuits. Here are the facts:

Contrary to popular myth, very few injured Americans file lawsuits.

Only 10 percent of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation,
which includes informal demands and insurance claims. Only two percent
file lawsuits. Compensation for Accidental Injuries in the United
States, Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1991).

Between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year (and 300,000 are
injured) due to medical errors just in hospitals. Yet eight times
as many patients are injured as ever file a claim; 16 times as many
suffer injuries as receive any compensation. National Academy of
Sciences Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human, (1999); Harvard
Medical Practice Study (1990).

The number of personal injury ("tort") lawsuits is steadily dropping,
while "contract" suits (businesses suing businesses ) are on the
rise. Tort suit filings dropped 9% between 1989 and 1997; contract
suits went up 9% between 1995 and 1997. Tort suits now comprise only
7.5% of all cases filed in U.S. state courts. National Center for
State Courts (1997).

Liability costs for businesses are miniscule and dropping.

Annual insurance and claims costs for U.S. businesses were only $5.25
for every $1,000 in revenue in 1997. Moreover, these costs have been
declining significantly -- down 37% over the last five years. Ernst
& Young and the Risk & Insurance Management Society (1998).

Products liability insurance costs, per $100 of a retail product,
are only 16¢ -- a tiny fraction equaling less than 2/10 of 1 percent.
Adjusted for inflation, products liability insurance costs have fallen
about 75 percent over the last decade. Consumer Federation of America
(1998).

Tort law limits do not reduce insurance rates. The only study ever
conducted of the impact of tort restrictions on insurance rates in
every state in the country finds absolutely no correlation between
enactment of "tort reform" and insurance prices. Some states without
"tort reform" have experienced low rate increases while other states
with major "tort reform" laws have seen very high rate increases
relative to national trends. Premium Deceit --the Failure of "Tort
Reform" to Cut Insurance Prices, Citizens for Corporate Accountability
& Individual Rights (1999).

For More Information, contact

Citizens for Corporate Accountability & Individual Rights 212/267-2801
http://ccair.org

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://ccair.org/releases/verdict5900.html

For release: For more information, contact: May 9, 2000 Emily Gottlieb
or Joanne Doroshow at (212) 267-2801


Jury Verdict Trends: What the Data Really Shows

Since the mid-1980s when the corporate assault on the civil justice
system began under the guise of so-called "tort reform," jury verdict
data most frequently cited by the wrongdoers' lobby have been gleaned
from a legal publishing firm called Jury Verdict Research (JVR).
"Jury awards are skyrocketing" is a common spin of "tort reformers"
who sometimes cite JVR's rising median verdict data to document "out
of control" juries. Yet there are distinct trends in the other direction,
as was documented yesterday in an extraordinary Dallas Morning News
cover story by Marc Curriden, "Panels Rarely Give Big Awards or Buy
Novel Defenses," showing sharply dropping verdicts. (See, http://dallasnews.com.)

JVR's statistics, which are compiled for use by attorneys who seek
better information about trying cases, have long been misreported
by the "tort reform" movement. As far back as 1986, JVR's chairman,
responding to such misuse of its statistics, testified before Congress,
"[O]ur studies do not support any claim of recently escalating jury
verdict awards. The apparent reason for this erroneous impression
is that a number of highly publicized news articles quoting our statistics
have grossly misstated them." Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Economic Stabilization, 1986, pp. 346-347.

Indeed, JVR's data are routinely distorted or inappropriately used
by the wrongdoer's lobby in its push for legislative restrictions
on the power and authority of civil juries. As reflected in its latest
report, Current Award Trends in Personal Injury Cases, 1999, the
problems are several-fold:

1. JVR's database and its data collection methods inflate JVR's "median
verdict" data.

JVR's "median verdict" data are a poor measure of the state of the
civil justice system because the data are skewed toward the high
end - they do not include defense verdicts ("0" verdicts), verdicts
in non-jury trials, verdict reductions by remittitur or verdicts
overturned on appeal.

JVR collects its data unscientifically -- from "court clerks, independent
contractors, plaintiff and defense attorneys, law clerks, legal reporters
and media sources [i.e., newspapers]." Therefore, its "median verdict"
data are inevitably skewed towards high end verdicts that are self-reported,
highlighted in the media or spread through word of mouth.

JVR "median verdict" data are not adjusted for inflation, so they
are inappropriate for showing trends over time. Some rising verdict
data may not even have kept up with inflation.

Sometimes JVR generates statistics even though its data sample is
insufficient for a given year. For example, JVR ranks punitive damage
awards according to type of liability, with business negligence at
the top with 29 percent. JVR does this even though business negligence
cases were underreported for 1998 - indeed, so small a sample size
as to make them statistically questionable. It is likely, then, that
the awarding of punitives damages in business vs. business litigation
is statistically even greater.

2. The wrongdoer's lobby selectively cites JVR data to support allegations
of a "lawsuit crisis," while ignoring data in the same JVR publication
that directly refute such claims. Bearing in mind that the data are
not adjusted for inflation and are skewed toward high-end verdicts,
JVR's current report shows the following:

The percentage of cases where plaintiffs recover anything has undergone
a substantial decline within the last ten years, decreasing from
63 percent of cases in 1997 to only 53 percent in 1998. Notably,
these are cases that have gone to trial, i.e., where a plaintiff
has already prevailed before a judge on all of the defendant's preliminary
motions to dismiss the case.

Million-dollar awards continue to be awarded in cases involving the
most severe injuries. Of the cases reported between 1997 and 1998,
million-dollar awards were received by 94 percent of those who suffered
paraplegia or quadraplegia, 71 percent of cases where a leg or arm
was amputated, 24 percent of cases involving death and 24 percent
of burn victims. In medical malpractice cases, median verdicts or
settlements of $1 million or more were only for cases that involved
brain injuries or paralysis.

Punitive damages in product liability cases are rare, awarded in
only 10 percent of cases, which is a 2 percent drop since 1997. They
also continue to decrease in size. The median product liability punitive
damage award in 1998 declined by 48 percent since 1997, decreasing
from $388,000 in 1997 to $200,000 in 1998.

Punitive damages in medical malpractice cases continue to be extremely
rare, awarded in only 2 percent of cases from 1995-1997 (none were
reported to JVR in 1998). The 1997 median malpractice punitive damage
award was 27 percent lower than the 1996 median. More specifically,
the median punitive award totaled $290,000 in 1997, a sharp decrease
from the 1996 median of $397,500. Since 1993, punitive damages have
been awarded in only 1 percent of auto accident cases.

3. Rising "median verdicts" may mean that "tort reforms" are keeping
legitimate cases involving less severe injuries out of court altogether.
Severe restrictions on the ability of many injured plaintiffs to
bring lawsuits are without question now keeping many legitimate cases
from being filed. This phenomenon is reflected in National Center
for State Courts statistics, whose latest report shows that tort
suit filings have dropped 16 percent since 1996. Examining the Work
of State Courts, 1998, National Center for State Courts (1999). There
is no evidence, however, that the number of people injured each year
is dropping. Indeed, the National Safety Council reports that unintentional
injuries claimed the lives of 95,500 Americans in 1999 - the highest
death toll since 1988.

Another good URL for "tort reform" myths:

http://www.consumerrights.net/insurance_myths.html

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

INSIDE ALLSTATE DISCUSSIONS

Go here http://riskmail.lsu.edu/riskarchive.html

Click on Search, and enter Allstate.  Some interesting stuff.  A
deeper level than the Yahoo board, both pro and con.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ARE THEY ALL CORRUPT?

CYBERCOMMENTS: Actually, the entire CA legislature has been fattening
off the insurance industry, even the Quack critics, which is why
many don't expect their "hearings" to go farther than political grandstanding.
 Even Senator Speier, who has been a virulent critic of Quack, has
introduced an odd bill to make the commissioner appointed again,
which historically had resulted in even More corruption, since his
actions are at one remove from whatever corrupt governor (the last
one and the current one both are) takes insurer money in carload
lots.

Here is one correspondent's observation.  I'll get the article to
you when I recieve it:

Jim Mooney 5/23/00 Webmaster of CrimeLine

Re: Sacramento News & Review article on Quackenbush

Jim,

Enclosed are photocopies of the 5/11/00 Sacramento News & Review.
It's a tiny newspaper but they banged Quackenbush several years ago
with "leaked" documents from DOI and won in court when he tried to
force them to reveal who "leaked" the documents.

Note how she correctly notes that it doesn't matter who takes Quackenbush's
place, it will be business as usual as the entire leadership of the
California Legislature is involved in this corruption and has been
for some years.  She has retired from politics and has moved to Oregon,
hence her candor.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

DATAMINING

http://www.insurancefraud.org/opinions.html Datamining may be laying
some bombs of its own By Michael E. Diegel

We've never been technological Luddites-no Unabomber manifestos read
here. Nevertheless, we do try to keep our ears to ground for the
evil that men (and women) may do with a computer.

Individual privacy rights have gotten most of the attention in this
regard, and we have been active in debates over the need for privacy
versus investigators' needs for information. But now that software
programs to detect fraud have become common, there appears to be
additional problems on the horizon. Most insurers are using some
sort of datamining software, usually with an artificial intelligence
aspect to them, to assist in detecting potentially fraudulent claims.
In the past, in fact, carriers have faced suits, mostly in the workers
compensation arena, accusing them of not using all available tools
to fight fraud.

The reasoning goes like this: carriers who fail to fight fraud are
creating artificially high premiums. In addition, failure to deny
fraudulent claims means that an employer suffers artificially inflated
loss experiences which make it difficult for that business to find
another insurer to escape the high premiums.

But you can, as they say, be damned if you do and damned if you don't.
There are now reports of class action suits being drafted against
insurers for using fraud-detecting software. Insurers are being accused
of using the software for the sole purpose of denying claims. They
are also targets of discrimination suits accusing them of profiling
claims to identify potential fraud, either by race, income, zip code
or some other easily programmed criteria.

None of these kinds of potential suits has been resolved yet, so
it's hard to know how the courts will rule. Many insurers, in the
absence of appropriate software from outside vendors, developed their
own proprietary systems, so they would be the most vulnerable should
the courts find that some types of programs may be discriminatory
or otherwise against the law.

Obviously, that would have a chilling effect on the development or
purchase and use of these software systems; even the filing of suits
may be having that effect. It also could inhibit the development
and mining of large databases of claims or other information the
industry deems useful.

But any court decisions likely will revolve around how datamining
software is actually used. It's exciting to have a great new technology
to work with and tempting to use it in the most expansive possible
way, making all sorts of connections most investigators never dreamed
they'd see. But there lies the potential for danger.

For example, we've heard that there are instances where claims from
every chiropractor in certain zip codes are automatically routed
to the special investigation unit for review and possible action.

If true, that strikes people like Janet Bachman, AIA's vice president
for claims, as a dangerous practice. "Unless they can prove that
every chiropractor in that zip code is committing fraud, it seems
to me [the carrier] is skating on very thin ice," she said. We agree.
So far, insurers have largely won kudos in the press for its adoption
of technology to fight fraud. But we can easily imagine that being
instantly reversed should the press learn of a practice like that
described above.

It would do nothing to enhance insurers' public image, and would
have a devastating effect on the public's attitude toward fraud-fighting
just when it looks like we're coming up on a corner that can be turned.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ANTI-NATIONWIDE SITE (ABUSE OF AGENTS)

http://hometown.aol.com/paniica/index.htm

Why was the contract of a profitable "Career Agent" of 14 years terminated
on 9/2/98 without notice? Why were thousands of his clients "sold"
to a displaced manager who participated in his termination? Why was
his contract not reinstated after an Agents Review Board of his peers
was unable to sustain the termination? Why was a profitable & exemplary
agent suddenly without a livelihood? Why was his Agency Manager "taken
aback" by the decision to terminate his contract? Why were all of
the details & timetables of the termination "scripted" well in advance
by Nationwide's Office of General Counsel? Why was it necessary to
convene a special meeting in West Virginia of Nationwide's top management
to discuss the "final resolution of the Fraser situation"? Why was
it necessary for Nationwide to develop "talking points" for media
inquires into Fraser's termination? Why is Nationwide petitioning
the Federal Court for protection from revealing the identity of the
person or persons who furnished confidential electronic records of
Fraser to Nationwide senior management? Why did Nationwide sue Fraser
to keep him out of the insurance buisness?

FIND OUT

Find out the truth as Docket # 98CV-6726 unfolds in the Federal Court
of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

CYBERCOMMENTS: Looks like Nationwide is abusing their agents in just
the same way that Allstate is.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

QUACKENCRIME UPDATES

The saga of Chuck Quackenbush of CA, America's most corrupt insurance
commissioner (caught anyway) continues:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/insurancegate.php3

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"There is no Justice but that we make it so."

Important URL:
Whistleblower Vendetta Trial and Secret QCR Files
http://www.allstateinsurancesucks.com/WhistleBlower_trial.htm

The insurance industry spends hundreds of millions to control the
 media and politicians.  We can't afford that. But if you want to
help us get more of the truth out, please send a donation to our
box below:

Jim Mooney, webmaster
 4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd PMB # 204
 Jacksonville, FL 32210

That's all for now..

Please feel free to unsubscribe by replying to this letter with UNSUB
in the subject line.  Or if friends want to subscribe, have them
write  me  with SUB in the subject line:
 EMAIL: kana@fcol.com    FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Truth and Justice will prevail! Promote it for all you are worth, or your worth will be nothing!

PR CRAP!

Please don't believe "You're in Good Hands", or that "A Good Neighbor" will deliver "A Piece Of The Rock", if you buy their Insurance!

_{If you entered this page from a search engine or another link, Click Here, to enter our site.}

_{©1998-2000 Page Designed by: Don Thompson}

FastCounter by LinkExchange