Complaint Review: ANPAC Insurance Agency - Galveston Texas

 Wayne R. E. Rudder

P.O. Box 2162

Yakima, WA 98901

718 733 4662

509 424 3037

[email protected]

 

 

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INAND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Wayne R. E. Rudder Plaintiffs

V

DSHS

ANPAC Insurance Company.

Does, 1 through 10

Case:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: BAD FAITH, FRAUD, THEFT BY DECEPTION, DISCRIMINATION, BREACH OF CONTRACT For:  95,000.  Jury Trial Demanded

 

 

 

This is a complaint for damages against ANPAC Insurance Company.   Plaintiffs state for cause of action as follows:

1.  Plaintiff Wayne Rudder ("Rudder") is a competent adult residing in Yakima County

 Defendant ANPAC Insurance Company is a heartless corporation, a den of thieves and a gang of racketeers doing substantial business and holding itself out as an insurance company in Yakima County, and licensed to do business in the State of Washington and elsewhere.

 The true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiffs, except for these defendants aided and abetted Farmers in the wrongful acts and omissions set forth herein. Plaintiffs shall seek leave to amend this complaint to allege additional information and the identities of Does 1 through ten when these become known.

 At all times relevant herein, each Defendant was the agent and employee of every other defendant and performed acts and omissions complained of herein in the course and scope of such agency and employment.

 At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff resided in a home he owns under a complicated set of unrelated facts where the home is titled to Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno , a home and real property known as 231 Windy Ridge Lane in Moxee, Washington, County of Yakima.

 Relying, to their detriment, upon widely publicized but generally false representations by Defendant ANPAC to be "fast, fair and friendly", Plaintiffs purchased a policy of insurance from ANPAC which, among other things, promised to indemnify Plaintiff in the event their property in Moxee was burglarized.

  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff made all payments due under the policy, no matter how extortionate those payments may have been, and no matter how fraudulent the underlying promises of Defendant has been.

 Plaintiff did at all times reside at their property in Moxee at the residence purportedly insured by the Defendant.

 On the date of July of 2011 Plaintiff hired John Hale to complete repairs to damage caused by a fire to the home in January of the same year.  Hale was the fourth contractor to work on the home as the previous contractors had been unsatisfactory.  Hale demanded 900 to complete the work. However, when the Plaintiff had paid 1,900 to Hale in addition to some 800 in food, beer, cigarettes and other items, Hale then demanded more money from the Plaintiff in the form of A. 350  to pay for a purported ticket, and 450 to pay for a purported towing of a motor vehicle owned by Hale. Plaintiff balked at paying any more money until all the repairs were completed. This caused Hale to then engage in a two week sick out and then to stop work altogether on the premises. The relationship between Hale and Plaintiff grew caustic and uncommunicative. Plaintiff, because he feared that his long office hours would enable Hale to wreak vengeance on the property, spoke to Dan Williams, an agent for ANPAC who was his neighbor at his office location. Dan invited the Plaintiff to file for insurance and Plaintiff did purchase insurance to indemnify any loses at the home.

 On or about October 12, 2011 the Plaintiff returned home to find that a brand new receiver purchased from Best Buy, still in the box, was taken by someone.  Plaintiff did not report that theft, but did foray into the stores to purchase a replacement.

 On the date of October 25, 2011 the Plaintiff arrived home to find that the window leading from the exterior spa had been broken and the entry allowed entry to the house through the bathroom window. The following items, nonexclusive, were taken, television, computers, computer items, CD players, and many other items were taken from the residence. On this occasion the Plaintiff did make a claim with ANPAC and did urge to ANPAC that his items were stolen. The Plaintiff, an Immigration Specialist in Yakima, did detail one of his four secretaries to make a claim to ANPAC. The secretary did make the claim and did inform ANPAC of the loss.  The Secretary utilized a general list of items that were in the house that were missing and included a counter top stove which had not actually been stolen but which had been in the back of the Plaintiff’s Expedition and later placed in the office of the Plaintiff for sale due to the fact that it utilized gas and the Plaintiff had no gas outlets and the Plaintiff had purchased a stove from Home Depot.

 A few weeks later the Plaintiff was again robbed and his work clothing taken, televisions, laptop and other items. These had been primarily the replacement items for the items that had been stolen. Plaintiff believed that both items had been done by John Hale who lived on a neighbor’s property with his family in a Fifth Wheel. On all occasions the Plaintiff reported the theft to the police and again proceeded to file a claim with ANPAC.

 Finally, a little while later Plaintiff’s entirety of belongings were taken, clothing, jewelry, the stereo, and many other items were removed from the house.

 Plaintiff filed another claim with ANPAC.

 Plaintiff learned that his office was also being targeted and he could not be in two places at once. His home is located outside of Moxee, about seven miles outside of Moxee and it would take the police some 20 minutes to get to the house which, within that time, the entire house could be moved. Since all items had been stolen and only the beds and the stoves remained in the house, the Plaintiff began to spend most time at his office where he could also sleep and cook and bathe.  To allow the office to be robbed the way his home was would be absolutely detrimental to the Plaintiff’s clients. The Plaintiff reported all the thefts to the Sheriff Department in Yakima.

 The Plaintiff had, at the time, some 580 clients for his immigration services and that had a higher priority rather than remaining at home to protect his meager belongings. 

 

1. On or about the date of June 12, 2009 Plaintiffs Garcia and Moreno granted verbal Power of Attorney to Rudder and solidified the verbal Power of Attorney by assigning a written and certified Power of Attorney to Rudder in June of 2010. This Power of Attorney essentially transferred all interest in the house to the Plaintiff.

 This Power of Attorney, for valuable consideration, granted Rudder the exclusive right and authority to, in addition to other responsibilities,  submit claims regarding the 231 Windy Ridge Property, to file insurance claims and litigate insurance and other claims regarding the property, and to tend to Garcia and Moreno's interests in the United States extending such to include the power to act as attorney in fact in dealings with third parties in relation to the particulars of Garcia and Moreno.

 The Power of Attorney included the transfer of the furnished property to Rudder upon his determination.

 Previous to the incidents related to this suit, the home had been burglarized by persons unknown. 

 At the time of Garcia and Moreno's being taken into detention, and before their ultimate deportation, , federal immigration agents seized and confiscated certain items of personal property belonging to Garcia and Moreno. The Agents provided a receipt for this property to Garcia and Moreno.

   When Moreno and Garcia were taken into custody by the Immigration Agency, the house remained vacant with all of their personal property intact.

 About two weeks after their detention the house was burglarized by parties unknown. The police were called by neighbors on several occasions as persons were seen leaving the property with items belonging to the house.

  On or about May 12, 2009 the son of Francisco and Antonia and the daughter of Francisco and Antonia visited the house and had found the house to have been burglarized. Because they were undocumented aliens and due to the confinement of the mother and father no action was taken at that time. When Francisco and Antonia were sent to Mexico, it was without any sort of documentation which would allow them to make contact with Farmers Insurance and they did not know the depth of the loss.

  The house remained vacant from April 29, 2009 through June 10, 2010 when Plaintiff arrived at the house and found the house to be completely vacant with all personal belongings of Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia having been burglarized during that time.

   On or about July 4,, 2010 Mr. Rudder, upon locating the insurance information relevant to the Defendant, and consistent with his duties, contacted Farmers and made a claim in the name and person of Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno.  The value of the loss was about 119,980.  This is mentioned to provide the basis for finding that the house had long been targeted for burglaries and thefts due to its remote nature where it would take the police some 45 minutes to respond to any situation whatsoever.

  Plaintiff believed that the ANPAC Insurance Agency would be reputable in their dealings with him.  However, this was not so. The company balked at the claims and began to make extraordinary demands upon the Plaintiff. The Company unreasonably sought items such as specific receipts for the property lost and when the receipts were provided from Best Buy, Best Buy included a page of someone else’s account based upon the fact that the person had once had the Plaintiff’s telephone number when he moved to Yakima. The records at Best Buy are kept primarily by telephone numbers, it appears.

 Plaintiff provided a completed Proof of Loss to ANPAC where every page was certified and notarized. On one of the pages Plaintiff’s secretary listed a stove which had not been stolen and which was in the office of the Plaintiff since it had been damaged in transportation and needed to be taken to the Post Office.

 ANPAC began to engage in delay. For several months they did nothing at all to award the Plaintiff money for the damages done to his property when their policy stated clearly that they would do so. They assigned the claims to Eric Z. Cannon, a lawyer in Seattle, Washington.  The lawyer then began to make unreasonable demands of the Plaintiff  where many of the items sought were attainable by the counsel himself from public sources including the following: 

 In a follow up to your EUO, please provide the below information and/or documentation as it pertains to the 10/25/11 claim:

 1. Federal Tax returns or any other documents used for Federal returns between the dates of 2007-2011 for you individually (under all of the names and social security numbers you use) and your company Low Income Immigrations Assistance.

2. The full social security number for Vincent Daniel Hopper.

3. Any and all receipts you claim that you have detailing the purchase of all of the Macy's clothing items your are claiming on the expense claim sheet.

4. Cell phone records for October, November and December 2011.

5. The Youtube video that you believe might show some of the property claimed in this loss before the loss occurred.

6. The Power of Attorney documentation from Francisco Moreno and Antonia Marks which shows your authority to files claims on their behalf and also to be in the subject Windy Ridge home. Basically, I want to see any documentation which shows that you have ownership interest in the home.

7. Any documentation indicating that you are working with Bank of America in modifying the loan of the Windy Ridge address as well documents relating to the balance of said loan.

8. You mentioned that Balboa Insurance covers the Homeowners Insurance on the subject home. Please provide that policy and dates of coverage.

9. Any rental agreements you had in 2011 for anyone at the subject address.

10. Copies of your Bank account records (showing your debit account) for 2011 and 2012.

11. All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance for the 6/10/2010 which involved the alleged "looting" of the subject property prior to you moving in.

12. All documents relating to the insurance claims with Farmers Insurance relating to the 1 25/2011 fire loss at the subject property.

13. The complaint and restraining orders that John Hale filed against you and you against him. Although, I have the complaint you filed against him. 

1. 14.  The contact information fro Randy & Elsie Hendricks (the people that were staying in the subject property at the time of the loss).

15. The contact information for Sergio Mendoza, the gentleman that allegedly gifted you the Kitchenaid oven, microwave and stovetop. In addition, please provide his telephone number.

16. All other receipt you believe you have.

17. As you know, several things had to be deleted from the expense claims sheet as there were either recovered, not stolen or never bought by you. As such, you indicated that you will go through the expense claim form to see if there are other items that need to be taken off of the list. Please do this and provide me with a revised list.

18. Receipt for the two suits from Men's Warehouse.

19. Contact information for Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia.

18. Provide your statements for your best buy credit card for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 When the Plaintiff provided the entirety of his bank records and telephone records and informed Cannot that he would have to subpoena records for the telephones from two of the phone companies, Eron unreasonably believed that the Plaintiff had to gain those records himself even though the Plaintiff also would have to subpoena the records.

 Plaintiff provided a wealth of documents to Eron while at the same time trying to safeguard his office and to minimize any more incursions on his home.   

 When the Plaintiff contacted Eron and informed him that he would need more time in order to provide the documents he demanded, Eron then issued a final letter of denial where in the letter he accused the Plaintiff of being broke and having motive to hide his things and claim insurance. 

 Plaintiff’s bank records provided to Eron shows no less than 259,000 in receipts to the Plaintiff for the 1 and a half year from June of 2010 through September of 2012. Yet ANPAC, through Eron Cannon, stated that the Plaintiff was destitute and had no money.

 ANPAC balked at the fact that the Plaintiff’s funds and his firm’s funds were comingled to an extent to be difficult to determine which was which without realizing that the Plaintiff could run his business any way he choose to do so and keep his funds in accounts any manner in which he choose.

 Wayne Rudder

231 Windy Ridge Lane Moxee, WA  98936-9356

 Re:       Claim No.: Policy No.: DOL:

Insured: File:

46-T-2EC807 and 46-T-2FF563

46-T-25512M

I 0/25/11 and 1125112

Wayne Rudder

In Re: Wayne Rudder

 Dear Mr. Rudder:

 American National General Insurance Company ("ANGIC") has completed its investigation and evaluation of your above-captioned claims. In summary, ANGIC respectfully denies coverage based upon the intentional acts provision, the fraud, misrepresentation and concealment provision, the cooperation clause and also exclusion of a claim due theft by a resident. All of these provisions are contained within your ANGIC Washington Tenants Homeowners Policy.

 ANGIC has also decided to rescind or rather void your policy. Under separate cover, ANGIC will send you a refund of any paid premiums back to the beginning of the effective period of coverage for this policy.

 ANGIC continues to reserve all other potential coverage defenses and rights as well as the potential application of any and all Policy terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions. The following paragraphs outline some of the facts that support this decision. Although this letter does not recite all of the known facts regarding this claim, you can rest assured that ANGJC reviewed and considered all known facts and circumstances before making its final decision.

 Your Examination under Oath ("EUO") took place in Yakima, Washington on February 8, 201 2.

 For the purposes of this denial, the following language from the ANGIC Washington Tenants Homeowners Policy is pertinent:

TENANTS POLICY FORM 4 AGREEMENT

 

We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable  provisions of this policy. The policy deductible applies to each Section I occurrence unless speci fically excepted. The deductible does not apply to Section II losses.

 

SECTION I- COVERAGES COVERAGE C - PERSONAL PROPERTY

We cover personal property owned or used by any insured while it is anywhere in the world.  At your request, we will cover personal property owned by others while the property is on the part of the residence premises occupied by an insured. Also, we will cover, at your request, personal property owned by a guest or a residence employee, while the property is in any residence occupied by any insured.

 

SECTION I- PERILS INSURED AGAINST

COVERAGES C - PERSONAL PROPERTY

 We insure for accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage C caused by the following perils, except as provided in SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS:

 Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is likely that the property has been stolen.

 

This peril does not include loss caused by theft:

 committed by any insured, or any person regularly residing on thevresidence premises;

SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS

 We will not pay for loss or damage caused by any of the following excluded events as described in items I . through 12. below.  Loss or damage will be considered to have been caused by an excluded event if that event directly and solely results in loss or damage, or initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence.

 Intentional Acts, meaning any loss arising out of any act committed; by or at the direction of any insured; and

 

1. with the intent to cause a loss.

 

 SECTION I - CONDITIONS

 

2.     Your Duties After Loss.  In case of a loss to which this insurance may apply, you shall see that the following duties are performed;

1. prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing in detail, the quantity, description, actual cash value, and amount ofloss.  Attach to the inventory all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the figures in the inventory;

 

1. as often as we reasonably require:

 (2)        provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies.

 

 submit to us, within 60 days after we request, your signed, sworn statement of loss which sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief:

 ( I )      the time and cause of loss;   

'-------------       ·-····· ------       -----···· · -·

 (3)             other insurance which may cover the loss;

 (4)             changes in title or occupancy of the property during the terms of the policy;

 (5)             specifications of any damaged building and detailed estimates for repair of the damages;

 (6)             an inventory of damaged personal property in 2c;

 8.         Suit Against Us.  No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions and the action is started within one year after the occurrence causing loss or damage.

 SECTION I AND SECTION II- CONDITIONS

 2.         Concealment or Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, any  insured has willfully concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of any insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by any insured relating thereto.

 If we analyze the motives, means and opportunity that exist in the 10/2511 I claim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that you were intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from your home.

 It is quite apparent that you have minimal financial means. You have less than $1,000 in your checking and savings accounts and have over $7,700 in unpaid traffic ticket collection. You also have $1,400 in revolving account balances with Macy's, and according to your own testimony you "always spends all" of your money. Moreover, in the beginning of the claim, you informed ANGIC that you were financially stretched and were pressing for a quick resolution of this claim. You claim to have a take-home salary of $4,000 to $6,000 per month, but you did not substantiate that claim. Your take-home pay at that amount would also be contradictory to your statement that you did not make enough money to file federal tax returns. Considering your financial situation, you certainly had a motivation to stage the theft of certain items within your  home in order to claim $13,000 in losses. The $13,000 is a substantial amount to you  as it slightly exceeds your adjusted gross income per year.

 It is also important to note that you do not have any other money in savings, any retirement account, or, in fact, have any proof of ownership of the subject home. Even if you did, you could not afford the $2,700 mortgage per month.

 You go by several aliases, three of which have different social security numbers. You indicated that you use these aliases and different social security numbers in order to avoid paying traffic tickets. This ruse, along with use of several social security numbers for one individual, certainly makes it likely that you are not a credible individual. Moreover, you are utilizing these various social security numbers and aliases to file several lawsuits and also to obtain credit in revolving accounts such as being a secondary subscriber under Antonia Garcia.Marks' Macy's account and listed as Antolin Marks.

 You also hold yourself out as a licensed attorney in your business at Low Income Immigration Assistance. You appear to be practicing law without  a license and are misrepresenting your credentials on some of your websites. All of this in totality reveal that you are prone lo unethical behavior which may lead to an inference that you would have no issue in submitting a fraudulent insurance claim such as the 10/25/111 claim.

 You indicated that two renters, Randy and Elsie Hendricks, were at home and sleeping in the room next to your master bedroom at the time of the loss. The loss occurred between 2:30 and 9:30 p.m. You could not explain why the Hendrickses did not hear the loss as it was occurring. You admitted that it would most likely take more than one person to have taken all these items and also several trips to accomplish the theft. It is quite difficult to believe that the Hendrickses were at home at the time of the loss and did not hear a window being shattered, one or more persons shuffiing around the house carrying some heavy items and making several trips. You tried to explain that it was your belief that the Hendrickses did hear the loss, but did not leave the room for fear of being injured by the purported thieves. However, when asked in your EUO, if that was the case, why after the theft did they not call the police or yourself? You did not have an explanation for this.  Moreover, the Hendrickses did not even tell you that they heard the loss.

 You were obviously trying to establish an alibi, but realized after the EUO, that it was a weak one at best. You were requested to provide me with the contact information for the Hendrickses, and so far you have concealed this information.

 During the investigation, you mentioned several suspects that may have broken into your home on October 25, 201 1 . However, you indicated that the primary suspect was John Hale.  You also indicated  that  it was his belief that  Donnyel  Ggobert was involved  and provided  a detailed statement to the Yakima County Sheriff.  However, after you realized that Mr. Ggobert was in jail, you could no longer point to him as a suspect.  Mr. Hale as a suspect raises some questions and issues.  In the EUO, you explained that Mr. Hale was 5'6" tall, weighing 156 pounds.  Thus, it did not make any logical sense that Mr. Hale would have stolen over $6,000 worth of clothes that would never have fit him.  You tried to explain this away by indicating that Mr. Hale took these items out of "spite."  Moreover, at the EUO, you stated that you filed a detailed lawsuit against  Mr. Hale claiming fraud, deception, harassment, etc., in the amount of $259,000.   Thecomplaint adds quite a bit of colorful language as it pertains to the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Hale's  repair of your home. You most likely felt that the existence of this complaint against Mr. Hale would add credence to the claim that Mr. Hale was a suspect in the subject Joss. The Yakima County Sheriff dusted for fingerprints and could not find any foreign fingerprints, let alone those connected to John Hale. The claim that John Hale or Donnyel Ggobert were suspects appears to be contrived by you in order to shift focus on you as being the person who more likely than not fabricated this loss.

 As it pertains to the items allegedly stolen and the expense claim fonn submitted by you, there are some serious issues related to the same. In the initial discussion with the Yakima County Sheriff, on the date of the incident, you indicated that only four items  were stolen, which included a TV, computer, pressure washer and mower. On the expense claims fonn, there is no listing of a pressure washer or lawn mower. Further, this fonn lists well over 50 items which is a substantial difference from the four items that were claimed initially. This was even pointed out by the Yakima County Sheriff that the supplemental list was quite a bit larger and went "on and on." It appears that you were trying to pad the loss by claiming more items.  It is also important to point out that there is an unusually higb number of recent purchases in 2011, which does not comport with your financial condition. If, in fact, you were financially stretched as you said you were, it is unlikely that you could have afforded this large amount of items in 2011. You also could not provide receipts for some of the large ticket items, to include the TV, computer, men's suits from Men's Warehouse, etc. It is also interesting to note that the clothes that you allegedly purchased from  Macy's in the amount of over $6,000, you were only able to provide documentation as to approximately $1,700 worth of items. Those that you did provide documentation for, they arc under the account of Antonia Garcia-Marks and a secondary subscriber of Antolin Marks. Interestingly enough, you have a balance of approximately $1 ,400 with Macy's at this time.  In one of the claimed items within the expense claim sheet, you claim a Samsung BD Blu-ray player for $163.51 that appears to have been actually returned, rather than purchased.  Thus, you may have, in fact, purchased these clothing items from Macy's, made a claim on the same, and then returned those items.

 Based upon the foregoing facts and inferences, the preponderance of the evidence shows that you were more likely than not involved in the theft of items from your home. Consequently, this would not be considered an "accidental" loss as described in the ANGIC policy definitions above.

 As it pertains to fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of material facts in this claim, the following is pertinent:

 As stated above, you provided an expense claim report to both the  Yakima  County Sheriff and ANGIC. Initially, the Yakima County Sheriff investigated the loss on the date that it purportedly occurred, and you claimed that only a computer, TV, lawn mower and pressure washer were stolen. However, you then provided a supplemental expense claim fonn which listed over 50 items. Absent from this list is the pressure washer and lawn mower earlier claimed to have been stolen.   It is astounding that you, on the date of the incident, did not notice over

$6,000 worth of clothing items missing, as well as a microwave, oven, countertop stove, camera, computer monitors, printer, home entertainment system, receiver, etc. Even the Yakima County Sheriff recognized this to be quite curious as they said the supplemental list went "on and on."

 You also submitted a Best Buy account of purchases invoice for a one Maria Aguilar. You admitted that this was not your account, and it was a mistake on the part of Best Buy to provide you with this information. Nevertheless, that did not stop you from claiming some of her items on the expense claim form. While the items do not necessarily amount to much, around $100, it is quite telling  that there were specific items taken out of Ms. Aguilar's purchase statement which appeared to be deliberate. In other words, if in fact you had  an assistant go through Ms. Aguilar's purchase statement, one wonders how the assistant decided to pick those items. More likely than not, you directed the assistant to claim those items. Further, and along those Jines, you provided the Best Buy purchasing statements for Antolin Marks. There appears to be over I 00 purchases, and without your direct involvement, one wonders how the assistant decided to pick certain items. More likely than not, you had direct involvement in listing the items on the expense claim form.

 It is also important to note the apparent misrepresentation by you that you purchased a Denon 75 watt 5 change audio/video receiver. You indicate on the expense claim form that you purchased this item on August 5, 2011,  but  when  looking  at  the  Best  Buy  purchasing  statement  for Mr. Marks, if you look at the column entitled "Type," it indicates whether the item was a sale or POS exchange. Further, under the "Price" section, it indicates an amount, either with parenthesis or without parenthesis. Best Buy Customer Service Support states that if the item is under "Type" and it says "POS exchange," and the price has parenthesis around it, that means that item was returned. Based upon the sales history provided, you claimed two items on the expense claim form that you actually returned to Best Buy. These items are the Denon audio/video receiver of August 5, 201 1 for $249.99 and the Easy LP to MP3 item purchased on July 19, 201 1 for $77.49, and returned on July 22, 2011.

 There are a variety of items which we requested of you and you agreed to provide. Please see the list below:

   Federal tax returns or any other documents used for federal returns between the dates of 2007 and 2011 under all the social security numbers and names that he uses.

 Full social security number for Vincent Daniel Hopper.

 Cell phone records for October, November and December 2011.

 The Balboa Insurance Homeowners policy for the subject home.

 Copies of bank account records showing any debit counts for 2011 and 2012.

 All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance for June 10, 2010, which involved the alleged "looting" of the subject property prior to him moving in.

 All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance of January 25, 2011 pertaining to the fire loss of the subject property.

 Contact information for Randy and Elsie Hendricks.

 i.    Contact information for Sergio Mendoza, the gentleman that allegedly gifted the KitchenAid oven, microwave and stovetop to Mr. Rudder.

 An updated expense claim sheet identifying additional items that were not stolen or never owned by him.

 Receipts for the two suits from Men's Warehouse.

 Contact information for Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia-Marks.

 Bust Buy credit card statements for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 All other receipts that you believe you have in your possession, which is "easy to substantiate." You made this comment pertaining to the clothing items he purchased from Macy's.

 As of this date, you have failed to provide the majority of the above information. Considering that these items are accessible to you and you have failed to provide this material information, it appears that you are intentionally concealing this information from ANGIC.

 Based upon all the above evidence, you clearly committed fraud and  made material misrepresentations and concealed material information during this investigation.

 As it pertains to the 1/25/12 loss, it clearly appears to be a similar incident involving the same master bathroom window, which was purportedly broken into and used to enter the premises and in order to steal various items from your home. You stated that one of the tenants of his home, Luis Torres, more likely than not, stole these items from you.  However, you have not confronted

 Additionally, as it pertains to the 1/25/12 loss, you have failed to provide your sworn proof of loss within 60 days.

 Please note that your Policy and the law contain certain time limits for bringing actions against ANGIC, some of which may be less than one year from the date of this letter. Although the limitation period(s) may have been tolled during the time that ANGIC was evaluating this claim, the tolling will end upon the conclusion of this claim. Thus, at this point, the claims of 10/25/11 and 1/25/12 are deemed denied for purposes of all time limitations.

 Furthermore, because you have misrepresented and concealed material facts, it is certainly possible that ANGIC is not aware of all relevant facts and that the true facts would result in further grounds to deny coverage for your claim of I 0/25/11. ANGIC is fully reserving its right to assert any additional rights and defenses as well as the application of any and all Policy terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions.

 This coverage decision is based on the facts known to date. If you believe there are facts or arguments which may be relevant to this decision or if any of the above mentioned facts are in error, then please notify the undersigned and send me this information so ANGIC may consider any such new information.

 Sincerely,

 

 Stacey Jennings

Special Investigations Unit

American National General Insurance Company P.0. Box 3558

Springfield, MO  65808-3558

 

1. Many of the items demanded by Eric Cannon could not be produced, and he knew that he could subpoena the items from third parties but failed to do so: For instance, tax records which the Plaintiff did not have; Macy Credit Card Statements which the Plaintiff did not have, Best Buy Credit Card statements which were not even in existence since there was never a Best Buy Credit Card, Information relating to Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno; information related to Vincent Daniel Hopper;

 Mr. Cannon took issue with the fact that the Supplemental List provided to the Sheriff’s Department went “on and on”, however, the fact is that at the time the Sheriff arrived at the home, the Sheriff took no inventory and that was left to be provided to a supplemental list to be provided to the Sheriff as it is done in every single case in Yakima County.

 Cannon stated that it was more likely than not that the gardener, Luis Angel Munoz Torres, stole the items from the home and only his blatant racism is given for that conclusion.  In fact, Luis and Jose had been in the home for almost three years and enjoyed the items in the house more than the Plaintiff was able to. 

 It was clear from the facts evident that John Hale was the culprit in the theft of the Denon Receiver and the first burglary where he took the television from the bedroom, the computers, computer related items, and other things.  The second theft also bore the MO of Hale, but the third burglary where just everything else was taken was a bit perplexing in that it did not appear that the culprit was John Hale because John Hale was a music enthusiast and would have taken the best speakers which were bulky, but the speakers were not taken and they were left behind. This led the Plaintiff to believe that someone else had taken these items.

 ANPAC cites that the Plaintiff did not accuse Luis of the theft but the Plaintiff did not have the duty to accuse anyone regarding the thefts at all. The fact is that the policy stated that ANPAC would indemnify the Plaintiff from any losses made at the house and they failed to do so. The only responsibility the Plaintiff had was to report the claim and then supporting documentation. 

 The fact that ANPAC delayed for several months, and the fact that they have called the Plaintiff a thief, defrauder, and concealer of things to commit fraud is reprehensible and completely unfounded. 

 The Plaintiff cooperated with ANPAC to the best of his ability.  Some documentation was impossible to gain as they did not exist. Others were commonly available to both parties and ANPAC should have been able to gain those documents such as their own policy, the policy of Balboa, etc. Their entire behavior in this matter was deliberately bad faith.

 On or about July 25^th 2013 when the Plaintiff decided to take legal action he called and spoke to Lindsay Vanzandt and he requested that they send him a copy of the claims and proof of loss filed in each claim. She mysteriously claimed that the Proof of Loss was never filed in the claims when the Chase Bank employees will testify that they notarized the Proof of Loss and their mailing system was used to mail the documents to ANPAC. 

 ANPAC denied the claim based upon, they stated, “the fraud, misrepresentation and concealment provision, the cooperation clause and also exclusion of a claim due theft by a resident” but their actions amount to racism against the Hispanic residents of the home and racism against the Plaintiff who is Black. What they call concealment is the fact that some documents were just not available to anyone like the Best Buy Credit Card Receipts since there were never credit cards from best Buy and every item was purchased using Debit cards from the Bank of America, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Money Tree Premier Cash Solution Cards.

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that the ANPAC Insurance Company engaged in racism in their decisions on this claim (s).

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that ANPAC Insurance Company engaged in bad faith.

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that ANPAC voided and cancelled the policy without the required thirty day notice under Washington State law and this violated the contract between ANPAC and the Plaintiff and breached such contract.

 It is specially claimed that ANPAC libeled the Plaintiff and slandered the Plaintiff and his employees Luis Angel Torres Munoz in their writings and their statements to the effect that they called the Plaintiff a thief and a defrauder.  To wit:  ANPAC stated, “If we analyze the motives, means and opportunity that exist in the 10/2511 I claim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that you were intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from your home.”  Plaintiff disavows the statement that he was “intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from” his home.  Plaintiff will prove that the statement was racist, and self-serving by ANPAC. 

 Moreover, Plaintiff claims that these statements does not fall within the legal exception to libel and slander and was deliberately made to denigrate the plaintiff and his employees.

 Further, the statement by ANPAC, “It is quite apparent that you have minimal financial means. You have less than $1,000 in your checking and savings accounts and have over $7,700 in unpaid traffic ticket collection. You also have $1,400 in revolving account balances with Macy's, and according to your own testimony you "always spends all" of your money. Moreover, in the beginning of the claim, you informed ANGIC that you were financially stretched and were pressing for a quick resolution of this claim. You claim to have a take-home salary of $4,000 to $6,000 per month, but you did not substantiate that claim.” is directly disputed by the Bank records of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, U.S. Bank and Chase Bank. Which shows cumulative deposited income of over 259,000 for the period in question.

 Further, ANPAC’s statement, “Considering your financial situation, you certainly had a motivation to stage the theft of certain items within your  home in order to claim $13,000 in losses. The $13,000 is a substantial amount to you  as it slightly exceeds your adjusted gross income per year.”  Is completely without foundation and is calculated to slander and libel and demand the Plaintiff and such is controvered by all evidence presented to ANPAC.