South Beloit, Illinois
Not resolved
1 comment

PLAINTIFF, as and for its cause of action against the above-named defendant states and alleges as follows:

1) On Wednesday October 14th 2009 plaintiff discovered and reported a fire loss at their residence 1121 Renrose Ave. Loves Park, IL 61111. After a night in temporary residence, plaintiff discovered further fire damage at the same residence on 10/15/09 via a morning news show. Plaintiff notified defendant of losses on both cases and after extensive delay in its investigation, defendant committed a breach of contract by wrongfully denying liability to pay claim #13-B369-467 for the losses sustained from the 10/14/09 and 10/15/09 fires.2) Via a letter dated April 9th 2010 State Farm references specific policy provision as their reason for denial. State Farm is wrong in their assessment of the facts in which they claim reason for denial and wrong in their interpretation of the policy provisions they claim gives them the power to deny. Further details are outlined in Addendum 1.3) State Farm Insurance employed improper (bad faith) claims practices in its investigation of plaintiff's loss. Further details are found in Addendum 2.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant as follows:

That defendant be directed by the courts to accept liability to claim #13-B369-467 and to pay as contracted and listed in the policy limits in place at the time of loss for losses sustained by the fires at 1121 Renrose Ave. Loves Park, IL 61111 in respect to all existing damages and resulting damages from the fire and subsequent damages existent due to the delay in paying the claim.

That defendant be directed by the courts to pay all necessary court costs in relation to the processing of this litigation and any resulting fees as necessary to follow through with judgment.

That defendant be directed by the courts to pay plaintiff the maximum allowed by IL Law ($60,000) as restitution for the improper claims practices employed in their investigation, the unnecessary delay and the extreme stress impressed upon the plaintiffs by defendants slanderous, fallacious and improper handling of their loss, claim and investigation.

__________________________________PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A. I have read this document. To the best of my knowledge the information contained in the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.

B. I have not been determined by any court in Illinois or in any other State to be a frivolous litigant or subject to an Order precluding me from serving and filing this document.

C. I am not serving or filing this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party or to cause delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation or to commit a fraud on the Court.

D. I understand that if I am not telling the truth or if I am misleading the court or if I am serving of filing this document for any improper purpose, the court can order me to pay money to the other party, including reasonable expenses incurred by the other party because of the serving of filing of this document such as court costs, and reasonable attorneys fees.

_______________________________________PLAINTIFF _______________________________________ADDRESS _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________TELEPHONE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS _______DAY OF _______________,20__

_______________________________________NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT CLERK

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES_______________

ADDENDUM 2

IL Insurance code uses Sec. 154.6. to define what acts are considered to be acts of improper claims practices. The following is a detailed list of the practices employed by State Farm in their investigation of the losses referenced in this complaint. The acts will be listed by their respective lettering as listed in Section 154.6 of the IL Insurance Code and followed by details of the actions relating to the improper claims practice employed against plaintiff:

(a) Knowingly misrepresenting to claimants and insureds relevant facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;

Policy provisions SECTION I & SECTION II "" CONDITIONS, 2 CONCEALMENT OR FRAUD and SECTION I "" CONDITIONS, 12 INTENTIONAL ACT are the two policy provisions quoted by defendant as reason for denial of liability. These provisions read as follows:

SECTION I & SECTION II "" CONDITIONS, 2 CONCEALMENT OR FRAUDThis policy is void as to you and any other insured, if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether before or after a loss.

SECTION I "" CONDITIONS, 12 INTENTIAL ACTIf you or any person insured under this policy causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy for the purpose of obtaining insurance benefits, then this policy is void and we will not pay you or any other insured for this loss.

Defendant has misrepresented these policy provisions. Defendant has not been able to show how plaintiff has "intentionally misrepresented" anything, and has also not supplied any facts supporting the claim that plaintiff "procured a loss for the purpose of obtaining benefits". Although defendant has not shown that either of these has taken place, they have still chosen to misrepresent the validity of these provisions in their denial, and have hence employed improper claims practices.

Defendant has claimed these provisions as reason for denial, yet on 7/20/10 paid PNC Mortgage, an insured on the policy, a total of $82,516.46. This act is clear representation of a completely different interpretation of the provision, as the provision states that if the claimed actions of "concealment or fraud" and "intentional acts" will constitute the policy as "void to you and any other insured". Either the insured violated these provisions or they did not. If they did not, the provisions are not in force. Defendant has acted in favor of differing determinations, that they are in force and that they are not in force. This is an improper claims practice.

Furthermore, to determine an "intentional act" of arson, there must be an investigation from the IL State Fire Marshall, and this did not take place, therefore, it is entirely impossible for defendant to determine plaintiff performed an "intentional act" of procuring the loss. To determine intentional concealment and misrepresentation, it must be determined that the subject in question, which is being concealed or misrepresented, and the truth of said subject, was knowledgeable to the plaintiff before and during the time of the claimed concealment and misrepresentation and that plaintiff knowingly and intentionally concealed or misrepresented the facts, and that the defendant was negatively affected by such. None of these have taken place, and therefore, claiming the respective provision as reason for denial is improper claims practice.

IL Insurance Code Section 154 further verifies plaintiff's claim where it states:

"No such misrepresentation or false warranty shall defeat or void the policy unless it shall have been made with actual intent to deceive or materially affects either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the company"

(c) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigations and settlement of claims arising under its policies; (I) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;

Date of loss is October 14th 2009 & October 15th 2009. The date of denial was April 9th 2010. This is 177 days after the loss 119 days after turning in the repair estimate, contents inventory and proof of loss statement, and 64 days after the Examination Under Oath. This kind of delay is not "reasonable" nor is it "prompt".

(d) Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlement of claims submitted in which liability has become reasonably clear;

The October 14th 2009 loss was reported to have started on top of the dryer in the basement utility rom. This exact dryer had been directly related or adjacent to two other fires since 2007. Defendant, although shown that the dryer was defective from the fires, denied replacing the dryer on both occasions. On both occasions State Farm sent out their own repair man to fix the dryer and on one occasion the repair man started a fire in the dryer itself while trying to repair it. Plaintiff continued to show defendant that the dryer was defective, but defendant refused to replace it.

Clearly, if the fire started on this dryer, there is a reasonable explanation and liability here. Defendant was initially stating that the cause and origin investigation would be very quick and that we would be back in our home as fast as possible, coupled with numerous statements of liability and expectation of payment. These actions are clear acceptance, early on, of the defendant's reasonably clear liability in this claim.

(f) Engaging in activity which results in a disproportionate number of meritorious complaints against the insurer received by the Insurance Department; (g) Engaging in activity which results in a disproportionate number of lawsuits to be filed against the insurer or its insureds by claimants;

Simple research will show that the defendant has been paying exponential amounts of money in lawsuits for years now. You can see this in their notorious treatment of Katrina victims and its follow through of McKinsey & Associates recommendation to "deny, delay and defend" for better profit margins. Defendant is consistently listed as one of the worst insurance companies by badfaithinsurance.com as determined by their amount of unpaid claims, lawsuits, complaints and judgments against them. The true colors of this "good neighbor" show through when you see the disproportionate amount of complaints against them received by the DOI.

(h) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information;

The following information has been supplied to the defendant by the plaintiffs and was never used in the investigation:

- List of gift givers names, phone numbers and addresses for items listed as gifts on contents inventory- Information on the Dentist which held the appointment where plaintiffs where the morning of October 14th 2009- Names, phone #s and addresses of those that could attest for the whereabouts of plaintiffs at the time of the loss- Names of companies where receipts will be on file to confirm the whereabouts of plaintiffs at the time of the October 14th loss- Information regarding threats and harassment of plaintiffs- Photograph confirming the existence of the form used to state that the Loves Park Fire Department listed the cause of the fire as "spontaneous combustion of a pillow" - Information regarding the negligent actions of the LPFD- Statement by Chief Foley of the LPFD confirming that they did not investigate the loss on October 15th 2009- Statement by Chief Foley of the LPFD, Mike Carlson of PROBE INC., and all present personnel on October 18th 2009 that the October 15th loss was due to electrical issues. - Denial and information regarding the accused infidelity of plaintiffs by gossiping neighbors

This list only needs to be 1 line long to constitute improper claims practice. There are far too many factors are play here that defendant refused to and did not investigate.

(m) Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, a claimant, or the physicians of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, resulting in the duplication of verification;

Plaintiffs met with two claims reps on October 16th 2009 and described the loss in detail to the reps. Plaintiffs then met with Katherine Kastner on October 26th for hours of separate recorded statements regarding the loss, contents of the home, layout of the home, past fires, financial status, and other information that can be found in the transcripts. Plaintiffs then were required to submit a formal proof of loss form which was turned in, along with content inventory, on December 11th 2009. Plaintiff was then required to submit to an Examination Under Oath (separate) that covered no more than the original October 26th recorded statements. All of this is a dramatic change and increase from what was required of Plaintiffs in prior losses. In no other loss was Plaintiff required to submit a proof of loss form, sit through recorded statements or examinations under oath. All of this additional activity proves that the defendant acted in an attempt to delay the investigation or payment of the claim.

(o) Failing to provide forms necessary to present claims within 15 working days of a request with such explanations as are necessary to use them effectively;

Defendant requires, as is normal insurance practice, an inventory of contents lost during the claim. Defendant informed plaintiffs of the proper way to complete this request, yet after said inventory was completed and submitted by means explained to plaintiff by defendant, the defendant required subsequent changes and additions, as listed below, to the list that were not previously instructed to the plaintiffs would be necessary. Failure to supply the necessary information to fulfill the ultimate requests is proof of improper claims practice.

- List of names, addresses and phone #s of all the people that are associated with the items listed as "gifts" on the content inventory- Asked to change the "font size" of the content inventory- Asked to change the value of an item to less than replacement cost

All of the above described practices show that Defendant clearly employed improper claims practices in its investigation and subsequent denial of liability in claim # 13-B369-467.

END ADDENDUM 2

ADDENDUM 1

Policy provisions SECTION I & SECTION II "" CONDITIONS, 2 CONCEALMENT OR FRAUD and SECTION I "" CONDITIONS, 12 INTENTIONAL ACT are the two policy provisions quoted by defendant as reason for denial of liability. These provisions read as follows:

SECTION I & SECTION II "" CONDITIONS, 2 CONCEALMENT OR FRAUDThis policy is void as to you and any other insured, if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether before or after a loss.

SECTION I "" CONDITIONS, 12 INTENTIAL ACTIf you or any person insured under this policy causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy for the purpose of obtaining insurance benefits, then this policy is void and we will not pay you or any other insured for this loss.

Additionally, there are 5 line items quoted in the denial letter dated April 9th 2010 that read as follows and are followed up with an explanation as to why they are not reasonable excuse to deny liability.

1- You intentionally concealed and misrepresented the circumstances surrounding the exterior door locks prior to the October 14th 2009 fire.

This accusation is false and not contractually or legally applicable in any way to defendant's liability in paying the claim. Plaintiff did not "intentionally" conceal or misrepresent anything. If there were any discrepancies as to whether the doors were locked, we did our best to represent such information as accurately as possible. Additionally, this information is not damaging to the investigation. Defendant has yet to supply copies of the transcripts of the Examination Under Oath, therefore, it is not possible for plaintiff to verify what misrepresentation is being quoted. Either way, it need first be proven as "intentional" and there was no such activity by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, line item 1 does not show how plaintiff has broken the Concealment or Fraud provision.

2- You intentionally concealed and misrepresented the circumstances concerning what occurred at the Residence Inn the evening of October 14th 2009.

This accusation is not applicable in any form, as it was not "intentional". This statement references the fact that Ryan Rydell had forgotten that Rebecca Rydell had left for Wal-Mart to buy food and cleaning supplies. Any difference in this remembrance is negligible, as it was clearly discussed with State Farm Claims Reps and openly and honestly discussed on Ryan's part. This is clearly not "intentional misrepresentation" and therefore, line item 2 does not show how plaintiff has broken the Concealment or Fraud provision.

3- You intentionally concealed and misrepresented your knowledge concerning the cause of the fire.

Defendant has yet to clarify what this statement means, and therefore, I make the following assumptions:

- The statement refers to their accusation of plaintiff starting the fire themselves- This statement refers to the accusation of plaintiff lying when they state they did not procure the loss themselves- This statement refers to the plaintiffs forwarding of the assumed cause, combustion of the pillow, as was stated by the Loves Park Fire Department- This statement refers to the LPFD's denial of the existence of a form used on October 14th at the plaintiff's residence in which it stated the cause as "spontaneous combustion of a pillow"

When Plaintiff was asked what caused the fires, they were very clear with Defendant that they did not know what caused the fire. Defendant, on numerous occasions, probed for Plaintiffs opinion, and any subsequent opinions were qualified as only opinion and not a factual representation of what took place. The only information forwarded to Defendant from Plaintiffs regarding the cause of the fire was information given to Plaintiffs by, Chief Foley of the LPFD, Jerry Caskey of the LPFD, and Michael Carlson of PROBE Inc. No such relay of "opinion" can be legally construed as "intentional misrepresentation". It is clear that line item 3 is does not show how Plaintiff has broken the Concealment or Fraud provision.

4- You intentionally concealed or misrepresented the extent and value of the loss to the personal property.

There are no facts to support this claim, nor is it applicable to any denial. Plaintiff submitted the proof of loss form as accurately as possible. Defendant personnel were present for a portion of the inventory counting and expressed no concern. The amount of loss to the dwelling was determined by Paul Davis Restoration, a member of Defendant's "Premier Service Program". Home content inventory was compiled using the recommended system as described to us by Mike Coffey, Christine Johnson, Mark Wood, and Katherine Kastner, all representatives of Defendant. Additionally, it is shown on Defendants website @ http://www.statefarm.com/_pdf/home_inventory_checklist.pdf what is expected in the inventory list. This is the system, as recommended by Defendant representatives, used to determine the value of the property lost.

Additionally, to use this statement as reason for denial is in direct contradiction to the policy provision SECTION I "" CONDITIONS, 4 APPRIASAL where it states:

If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal. If either makes a written demand for appraisal, each shall select a competent, disinterested appraiser. Each shall notify the other of the appraiser's identity within 20 days of receipt of the written demand. The two appraisers shall then select a competent, impartial umpire. If the two appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire within 15 days, you or we can ask a judge of a court of record in the state where the residence premises is located to select an umpire. The appraisers shall then set the amount of the loss. If the appraisers submit a written report of an agreement to us, the amount agreed upon shall be the amount of the loss. If the appraisers fail to agree within a reasonable time, they shall submit their differences to the umpire. Written agreement signed by any two of these three shall set the amount of the loss. Each appraiser shall be paid by the party selecting the appraiser. Other expenses of the appraisal and the compensation of the umpire shall be paid equally by you and us.

With the Appraisal provision in place if Defendant feels that the value listed on the inventory is wrong, it would be in "good faith" to enact this provision. Instead, defendant has wrongfully accused Plaintiff of lying and ignored this provision. Line item 4 does not show how plaintiff has broken the Concealment or Fraud provision.

5- You violated the Intentional Acts Condition of the policy by causing or procuring the fire for the purpose of obtaining insurance benefits.

To make this claim the Defendant must be able to produce the evidence and facts that support such a claim. Such evidence and facts do not exist because the Plaintiffs did not do such things. Just a "thought" of arson is not enough to deny a claim. The IL State Fire Marshall is to be contacted with all suspicion of arson, and after contacting their office, Plaintiff discovered that the IL Fire Marshall's office was not notified of the loss and have not conducted an investigation on the loss.

In the report sent to Defendant, and forwarded to Plaintiff, and further discussed between Plaintiff and the report's author, Michael Carlson of PROBE Inc., there is no official determination of the fire. It was confirmed to the Plaintiff by Michael Carlson that Defendant never followed up with him regarding his report and that he did not feel his report was reason for denial of the claim and that he was upset that Defendant would use his report to accuse Plaintiff of arson. In the report from Wesley Granlienard and Mammon Alyah of LWG, the electrical engineers hired by Defendant, it states "there is no evidence that any of the electrical appliances or equipment was a source of the fire". This lack of evidence is not support of evidence of arson; it is simply a lack of evidence of electrical failure, nothing more. These are the only two existing investigations into the cause of the fire, and therefore, there exists no evidence to support the idea the Plaintiffs should be accused of arson.

Line item 5 is a personal attack, slanderous, false, unfounded, based on no evidence, and does not show how Plaintiff violated the Intentional Act Condition.

END ADDENDUM 1

Monetary Loss: $300.

Do You Have Something To Say ?

Write a review

Comments

Terms of Service
Post Comment
Cancel
Anonymous
#278051

This is a ridiculous insurance company that don't deliver when the consumer is in pretty bad need due to accidents. I've been in this company for over twenty years on my cars and more than ten years with my house and I don't have any complaint then not until my house had an accident due to clogged sewer pipe and it flooded my house.

I filed a claim and I was denied for they said my house wasn't covered if it caused by tree roots. I would say this is ridiculous. What kind of home owner insurance is this??????? Paying the high $$$$ and nothing to help you when in need????

I paid about $3,000 to repair the damage done on my house and not even a dime of help from "State Farm Insurance"(the Good Neighbor in not there.TO YOU PEOPLE OUT THERE!!

BEFORE YOU FILE A CLAIM WITH THIS "STATE FARM INSURANCE" WHEN YOUR HOUSE PIPE ARE CLOGGED DUE TO ROOTS, DON'T TELL THEM THAT IT'S FROM TREE ROOTS FOR THEY WILL DENY IT FROM THERE.

I just hope and pray that it won't happen to you

You May Also Like