States Supreme Court Corruption
(Last Updated August 18, 2008, cont'd) The culmination if not pinnacle of many such biased state high court case decisions being handed down and brought to FBIC's attention over the past years, recently came to a head with that of an outrageous flagrantly biased wrongful
decision in one such case ... a biased over-the-top 3-2 pro-insurer, anti-consumer split dissent decision rendered by 5 state Supreme Court Justices on June 30, 2008 and officially published in the state's law journal of record on July 8, 2008. The error is
so flagrantly wrong and biased against all Americans and policyholders, that it is arousing the growing attention of a considerable number of America's legal professionals and numbers of citizens nationwide. The
wrongful pro-insurer anti-consumer case decision is one which is so outrageously and flagrantly wrong as expressed and indicated in the opposing dissent opinion decision of the minority 2 Justices that it can only question and strongly suggests that corruption, foul play and/or undue influence is involved here especially by the majority 3 pro-insurer voting Justices. In addition, the wrongfully decided case goes against all Americans, and not just this one state's insurance laws but to FBIC's knowledge that of all states insurance laws nationwide
(the full story explains why) ... and one which subsequently permanently increases and reinforces a growing pro-insurer anti-consumer bias and imbalance inherent in our states high court judicial systems.
The bizarre if not ridiculous basis for the wrongful decision is based upon the majority "3" of the state's Supreme Court Justices failure and refusal to recognize that a minimum of no less than 'two' different and separate timely notices were provided on behalf of the claimant-insured-policyholder to the insurer representing initial "notices of loss and/or impending claim" requiring the insurer to follow through and send out the proper forms which the insurer did not do. (1) One of the two notices of loss and impending claim was provided by an attorney on behalf of a small business policyholder-claimant, and (2) the other such notice was provided separately by the president of a large independent insurance agency which sold the insurance policy to the small business insured and who personally met with the policyholder shortly following the claim-related event. As part of the decision-making process, the "3" majority Justices by their 3-2 split decision fail to acknowledge and recognize the existence of the two timely notices submitted into evidence as confirmed that they were received by the insurer. (Of note: the insurance agency which sold the policy to the plaintiff represents the #1 agency in $ sales to the insurer in this state.)
The two written notices of loss and impending claim provided indicated that the business was "unable to operate". Any and all reasonable persons certainly agree that "unable to operate" indicates or equates to the very real possibility of there being a "business interruption" and would at least surmise if not question in addition the very real possibility that there would/might be "additional expenses" incurred by the insured-plaintiff-policyholder as a result. Without even a phone call by the the insurer, The insurance company's claim department in response and in error only sent out one form, an "employee dishonesty' proof of loss form covering a policy maximum $10,000 to the insured-policyholder-claimant and completely disregarded the possibility of there being other coverages involved in the claim to include at very least "business interruption" and "extra-expense" portions of coverage of which such forms were not included and sent. All legal experts agree that "it is the insurer's responsibility to make sure that 'all proofs of loss forms be provided and in this case it was obvious by the wording of the notices provided the insurer, that if the business was "unable to operate", that at minimum it was obvious that a "business interruption" form should have also been sent out along with an "extra-expense" form should have also been included and sent out enclosed along with the employee dishonest proof of loss form ... the insurer did not send out the correct and appropriate forms. And as a result and there's more in disbelief as you read on, that it becomes impossible to believe and more astonishing to comprehend (even to astonishment of the '2" dissenting Justices) that the majority '3' Justices can find against the insured-policyholder-claimant plaintiff as a "result of prejudice and late notice" and vote for the defendant insurer. (You've got to read on as the outcome of the case continues to become even more unbelievable in contrast and contrary to the evidence clearly submitted at trial that it is obvious that the opposing '2' minority opinion Justices, whose dissenting expressed opinion is right on, are obviously in absolute amazement, disbelief and astonishment that they too can't understand how the majority '3' could get it [so] wrong).
Originally, the case having already been reviewed by a trial judge and unanimously confirmed by the state's Appellate Court Justices, it is/was ridiculous to think that the State Supreme Court and it's Justices would even accept the case for review based on the defendant insurance company lawyers lame allegation that the two referenced timely preliminary notices of loss and/or impending claim provided
to the insurer a couple weeks following the claims-related multiple events by the two separate parties on behalf of the policyholder-insured-claimant were not timely and constituted "late notice" especially since (as described in the dissenting opinion by the 2 minority Justices) that "there was NO evidence (not one shred) provided at trial to support the majority opinion".
It was even more ridiculous and dumbfounding that an additional question could be brought up out of thin air and is/was ridiculous for the majority 3 State Supreme Court Justices to question as to whether the written words from the attorney for the small business policyholder-insured-claimant of being "unable to operate" meant or was adequate enough to imply and/or infer preliminary notice to the insurer of "business interruption". (Note: the issues of alleged potential late notice and potential prejudice caused the insurer as a result had been nothing more than a footnote at trial regarding the question as to whether the insurer had been 'prejudiced' by such alleged late notice where both the trial judge and an Appellate State Court Justices review of the case unanimously agreed as a direct result that if alleged, there was no late notice and no prejudice caused the insurer ... furthermore the 'only evidence and testimony' provided at trial regarding the question of whether there was such alleged late notice and whether it prejudiced the insurer was provided by the defendant's own insurance company senior adjuster and expert witness who testified and indicated that "the insurer was not prejudiced in any way" and that no other evidence or testimony was entered into evidence or submitted at trial and subsequently as stated and decided by the minority 2 Justices dissent decision for the insured that "with no evidence 'for' the insurer submitted at trial" there is "not one shred of evidence" to support the question that the insurer was prejudiced as supported by the majority 3 Justices and without one shred of evidence to support
the insurer, there can be no question as to the insurer being prejudiced by such alleged late notice which is why it was a non-issue at trial which was confirmed unanimously by the trial judge and the Appellate Court
The 2 minority dissent Justices say in their opinion "It is hard to imagine how the claimant could have provided any clearer notice to the insurer that its business had been
interrupted." Furthermore, it is the law and indisputably true as it was provided by the defendant insurer's expert witness and own employee in court testimony, given that it was indisputably the
defendant Insurer's responsibility, not plaintiff's, to identify the applicable coverage once the general nature of the loss itself was reported. In addition, the law states that in such cases between an insured
and an insurer, the correct decision for a Judge is what a reasonable person like you would think or decide. So we ask you to be the Judge, to decide and respond as to what you think about the following question,
"Does the wording and description of a business stating in writing to an insurer in an initial and preliminary notice of loss and impending insurance claim, that it was "unable to operate" in
whole or in part means, infers, implies or signifies "business interruption"? As confirmed by the dissenting 2 minority Justices, "the insured could not have made it clearer".
What's even more alarming and important here is how the 3 majority out of the total 5 Supreme Court Justices could have erred so miserably and be so wrong as to how they interpreted state statutory law. In this case everyone so far that has been polled including lawyers and legal professionals on this case have sided with the plaintiff policyholder-insured-claimant and indicated that this case is clear and not even close enough to have to consider the state statutes. The state's insurance statutes (and all states statutes by that matter) cite that in "close matters or where there may be some doubt or some reasonable doubt", the deciding factor of the matter rises to the level of that of what "a reasonable person" thinks and would consider in such a case ... and in such close cases (which all believe is not even close and is clearly not the case here), it is the court's responsibility to decide and side on behalf of the insured and/or policyholder.
Plaintiff lawyers and legal experts have observed for years biased wrongful decisions being rendered favoring defendant insurance companies (and insurers law firms and lawyers) against plaintiffs consumers and
businesses of all sizes by prejudiced states high courts judges and justices. Fraudulent and corrupt practices involving bad faith insurers' corruption of our states high courts judicial system are not new to
many plaintiff (consumer) insurance attorneys in the know but it's certainly among the top of today's news for Americans nationwide. It is truly unbelievable and outrageous that Judges and Justices of our
highest states courts are rendering biased and fraudulent decisions as a result of bad faith insurance companies (and their law firms) corruption and conflicts of interest ... And there is no independent government
agency oversight to stop it? How could our highest state courts Judges and Justices have shamefully sunk so low? Over the years FBIC has repeatedly seen such biased (corrupt) state court judges decisions. FBIC and
the American people demand that the U.S. Congress, Department of Justice (DOJ) and The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conduct a thorough and independent investigation of such illicit and inappropriate
concealed behind-the-scenes relationships that exist between Justices (Judges) of our highest states' courts, our country's major (bad faith) insurers and their law firms, now ... It's long overdue.
FBIC, along with legal and insurance experts statewide and nationally consider the case decision as grossly biased if not a dereliction of duty by the "3" justices/judges of the state supreme court in question. (It should be noted in this case that both the insurer's corporate headquarters and the supreme court location have co-existed in the same small-midsize city for more than 200 years and the insurer's law firm for 75 years. The state has been wrought with state government corruption including that of recent times where the present presiding governor in 2006 had to resign, was sentenced and served one year in prison for corruption ... upon completion of a federal probe six more state commissioners were forced to resign as well. Knowing this and the cited widespread illegal acts and major illicit influences of the insurance industry in this state, it would be naive to think that there was no undue influence between the state Supreme Court Justices, the insurer and it's law firm over centuries and so many decades and years ... even moreso now with the growing fraudulent activities over the past 10-15 years). The referenced case in question involved a substantial 7-figure $$$ unpaid 12 year old insurance claim against the defendant insurer. (with all this and and that's not even the skinny on this anti-consumer biased case which represents one of many such states highest courts biased cases decisions which deserves your reading and the American Public's full attention).
FBIC is a consumer insurance advocacy and are not lawyers but it's about time that the Public, the American People learned about these issues and in this regard what the legal profession
already knows ... that is about the foregoing illicit activities that erode their Constitution and their rights as American Citizens. FBIC knows that the plaintiff legal community and organizations along with others
have wrestled the big boys for the past three decades about such issues with little or no success. With the help of legal groups and organizations, FBIC is going to at least begin to coordinate an effort through it's
website, network and own contacts within the country's state and national legal groups and organizations to communicate and gather the support of the American People and join the fight against biased high court state
judges and justices, who consistently favor insurers even when insureds were/are clearly in the right, corrupt (bad faith) insurers and their law firms.
FBIC knows this effort will only succeed with the support of the American People. ALL other groups and associations that once were considered to be among
the most powerful in the country and that heretofore have gone up against the powerful insurance industry have LOST. They learned that they
were simply no match against the supreme power of the insurance industry. FBIC, as a consumer insurance advocacy, has taken up and fought against the insurance
industry on select issues in the past and has WON. (At least three such issues referenced in FBIC's headlines along with others readily come to mind.) FBIC 'won' because it learned from the experiences of
these others in the past and right from its inception in 1998, that to win such issues, it needs to have the support of the American People ... subsequently in this case FBIC requests:
Your Support and The Support of the American People
An overwhelming majority of legal experts agree that these parties are alleged to be very much involved in such illegal and corrupt activities for years. FBIC requests it's growing nationwide membership and it's network constituents to weigh in and let their voices be heard in this effort. FBIC and The American People ask the U.S. Congress and our political representatives to support and see that such
investigation(s) proceed. This issue effects ALL of our political representatives constituents (consumers and businesses alike). FBIC further asks all to stay involved and tuned to this website as efforts by authorities and the media are mobilized to investigate states' highest courts pro-insurers biased judges and justices, (bad faith) insurers, and these insurers' primary law firms of record ... and as to what is
expected to be a lengthy investigation.
NOW is the time for The U.S. Congress, DOJ, and FBI to investigate and stop such important and critical illicit activities from continuing that violate the law, infringe and desecrate the Constitutional Rights Of All Americans. ....
(Click here for the full story)