SURVIVOR U-HAUL: "For your protection, Alaska law"*
--
* concluding quotation from the cone of silence I am not
signing.
This is not rocket science: the search engines have made an entelechy called a functioning public domain possible. Part of what's troubling democracy in Alaska is that it shows every sign of being a "dollar-ocracy" (did BP have to pay the full $6300 fine for the Soldotna welder who died in the aging fields it has no economic incentive to maintain ['trust us' is what they always say--just like the new voting machines w/ their fake text assurance of a "system of checks and balances"]? I am not clever and so do not know. I would think though that between a quarter and a half of the sexual assaults reported in Anchorage going uninvestigated contributes to its being the sexual and domestic violence capital of the U.S.: it is not rocket science [could it be the nearby military bases? I do not know although they are suspect by association *which recent scandal pops first into mind?*). Another reflection of the dollar-ocracy is "primogeniture," inheritance of the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate or office, often occurring in royal successions to thrones and the U.S. Senate. Excuse me. Give me an F. Rest assured, if you are dumb enough--like me--to move to Alaska that the AG has 0% tolerance for pull-tab bingo and drugs (drinking beer and smoking salmon have always been legal). And the last frontier is going to send the data on all its K-12 kids to continental eastcoast USED under the fully funded but never discussed part of the NCLB, the Performance Based Data Management Initiative--just like every other state in the union (yes, bwana, we will do your bidding). What the accountability part of the NCLB (based on the foundation of the *poof, enron accounting* houston miracle) demands of the schools is like comparing escalating body counts over recent months: we can all agree, mathematically, that the friendly-fire ratio is much improved.
What follows is one of several letters I wrote to the AK AG. It is boring because I am not a celebot so am not franchised. This is true. It is also true--one of those simultaneous alternative reality situations--that I can speak: e pur se muove. Did you know that Jefferson and Hamilton--that initial democracy/republic debate--did have one thing in common: they both hated Paine. And even TR, the only prez to ever understand wilderness (not the current devolved Al Aska flavor), was quoted in a library.nl site as having called him a "filthy atheist." Tsk.
DATE: October 15, 2003 TO: Ms. Elizabeth J. Hickerson, Assistant Alaska Attorney General, 1031 W. 4th Ave. #200, Anchorage, AK 99501 CC: Alaska Division of Insurance FROM: Dr. Claudia Krenz, Box 7050, Nikiski, AK 99635 RE: DOI #02-00194JR
Thank you for your recent letter with its enclosure (AS 21.36.125., Unfair Claim Settlement Practices). I enumerate specific violations below. During the accident in question (12/01), I was a passenger, wearing my seat belt, helping a disabled person move: both truck and driver were insured by Republic Western Insurance Company, a U-Haul subsidiary, of Phoenix, AZ. My complaint also stems from U-Haul's insurance company's systematic violation of my right to the privacy of my medical records from 2/02 through 5/02; I did not give U-Haul permission use my medical records in interstate commerce: as a result of this wanton disregard for my privacy, my medical records from this period, including my SSN, are now in the public domain ("identity theft" has already happened once to me this year). There is apparently no end to the harm that U-Haul can cause me, because I am a citizen of the state of Alaska.
AS 21.36.125 Republic Western Insurance Company (U-Haul subsidiary, Phoenix, AZ) violation summary:
(1) misrepresent facts or policy provisions relating to coverage of an insurance policy: U-Haul called me 1/02 and said that their coverage for my injuries was 50k; U-Haul reiterated this in a 2/02 letter on file at the AK DOI (and in 2/02 made its sole payment to my health care providers). In 5/02, U-Haul's L'skulla told one provider recommended by my physician that he had, U-Haul had made me a "settlement" offer: that was one of his damned lies, flagrant prevarications are the norm throughout. I discovered that most of the medical bills I incurred as a direct result of this accident had not been paid. My time in tx was documented by the bills (in 02, my time-in-tx-alone was over 2 weeks, 24-7). Even were my time worth 'minimum wage,' U-halz "offer" doesn't come close to covering the costs already documented on its intra-net.
U-Haul also had my medical records from 12/01 - 5/02. StateFarm looked at the same medical records and paid out 10k under my own auto insurance (less than the bill total). Just last month U-Haal reimbursed StateFarm. The facts, documented time and again since this ordeal began, support what I am saying--nevertheless, the state of Alaska, the DOI, tells me that it is legal for U-Haul's "insurance" company to maul me as it wishes, doubtless part whim and part instruction. |
(2) fail to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications regarding a claim arising under an insurance policy: Between 1/ and 3/02 I sent U-Haul 3 separate spreadsheets itemizing my then out-of-pocket expenses: time in tx, miles driven, prescription costs. Of these, U-Haul chose to reimburse me $130, a small part of the prescription costs on one spreadsheet. I wrote the DOI, which told me in 5/02--the same month I discovered U-Haul had stiffed those who had rendered me health care--that U-Haul was behaving legally in Alaska. U-Haul also ignored the strong protest letter my physician sent, pointing out the inexorable negative impact on my health (I haven't posted this yet). How to complain about U-Haul stonewalling--excuse the euphemism--me when the DOI itself does the same?
(3) fail to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt investigation of claims: U-Haul didn't even need to submit an accident report to satisfy the DOI's criteria: U-Haul told the driver, the person I was helping move, who now lives who knows where, that she was at fault: there was never any documentation ... in my 12/01 taped post-accident interview, U-Haul's L'skulla hung up on me after I said the roads were slick and before I was going to say I'd heard the person-in-charge at the Soldotna U-Haul lot say the truck's brakes were shot ... U-Haul has lied to me, lied about me (I have a letter from the previously mentioned OT, saying she didn't believe what L'skulla had said about me), and lied to my health care providers, providing billing numbers but not paying, and otherwise slandering me. The only 'standard' I see is that U-Haul can do whatever it wants to anyone injured in one of its accidents who has the misfortune of being a citizen of Alaska.
(4) refuse to pay a claim without a reasonable investigation of all of the available information and an explanation of the basis for denial of the claim or for an offer of compromise settlement: "Reasonable Investigation?" There was no investigation: In 3/02 I complained about my out-of-pocket expenses not being paid; U-Haul preceded to send copies of my medical records from 12/01 on to a two-bit Oregon outfit recommended only by itself ... but I didn't know this until 3/03, when the DOI finally sent me a copy of its claim file, didn't know about this harmful, negligent, injurious abusive behavior towards me, didn't know soon enough to mitigate. I quote below from my letter in support of StateFarm (quotations from U-Haul's claim file (see http://www.claudiax.net/uhaul-alaska_sf.html).
3/18 "RESERVES: $6,500.00 indemnity ... Review of prescriptions ... are consistent with treatment regimen." 3/28 "Spoke with claimant ... she .. wants reimbursement for her mileage and time ... Medicals ... sent to A.M.B.R." 4/11 "RESERVES: $15,000.00 indemnity ... 3-26-02 medical notes report slow recovery ... Medical history: significant for ... right ankle injury .... Diagnosis: Left sacroilliac/facet [sic]... right trochanteric region pain."
The point is that any legitimate access U-Haul had to my medical records stopped in 2/02, when it made its sole payments, a point underscored by its telling StateFarm, in 10/02, that, although it insured the driver--and "found" her at fault--it wasn't going to pay (U-Haul finally repaid SF a month ago). Note also that u-HELL's "offer" is considerably less than the indemnity listed in its own claim file.
(5) fail to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time of the completion of proof-of-loss statements: U-Haul had my health-care provider bills--and my medical records--and my then out-of-pocket spreadsheets. UHAul paid its 1k medpay in 2/02 (that it actually paid 1.5k I attribute to its being, in addition to everything else--a stupid company), didn't tell me or my health-care providers that it was paying no more, continued receiving my medical records and authorizing additional treatment (and so receiving more of my medical record; yes explicitly authorized what my physician recommended), told an OT that it had made me a "settlement offer" in 5/02: a lie. It was not until 10/02, after receiving a letter of intent to be reimbursed from StateFarm, that I received a token offer of 3k, considerably less than the total of the direct medical bills already scanned into their corporate computer (of course, not mentioned was "subrogation": after receiving this "offer" I called StateFarm who warned me about this; I had no intention of complying anyway: and I did not. I called U-Hul and said to eat it (there was no ambiguity; I used vulgar words). UHaul repeated the same exact identical "offer" recently, about the same time it finally reimbursed StateFarm. Umaul also ignored the letter from my physician--he was speaking as someone concerned about my health--protesting my being forced out of tx ( http://www.claudiax.net/GIFFERS2/thiel.gif).
(6) fail to attempt in good faith to make prompt and equitable settlement of claims in which liability is reasonably clear: "Claims in which liability is clear?" U-HELL faulted the driver who had a 50k liability policy through them; my direct medical costs were less than the policy it had on the driver it faulted: who pays? Everyone but U-HHLL. The same insurance company, the Phoenix perverts, insured the only two rational causes of the accident: either the truck or the driver. Despite reality, U-Haal went so far as to make my physical recovery more difficult: which is the more rational, that I grew 1/2 in in 02 or that I unkinked from u-haul's accident? Who pays? everyone but U-Halt.
"Good faith?" I've had the misfortune to learn to expect the opposite.
(7) engage in a pattern or practice of compelling insureds to litigate for recovery of amounts due under insurance policies by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by those insureds; This must be the official *haha* catch-22 clause. I began looking for a lawyer in 6/02--but, as one told me, there wasn't enough money involved to make it worth his while: I can't find a lawyer in the State of Alaska (I gave up this spring). Perhaps my inability to find counsel is related to U-Haul's stock price, which plummeted--during the year the DOI, for whatever its reason, stonewalled my request for a copy of U-Haul's claims file--over 80% (U-Hulz may be in chapter 11 now). What does the law have to say about a citizen w/ 0% liability who can't find counsel? This is a royal mobius strip: U-Haul, 6 months after forcing me out of tx, "offered" me less than the costs documented in the bills it had on its corporate computer, which compelled me to a) itemize my federal taxes last year: I just added up uhaul_accident-related costs I'd incurred over the course of 02, b) asked the DOI (3/02), looked for a lawyer (6/02 thru early this year, when I gave up), c) asked questions of my elected officials, and d) posted my experience on the internet for others, as a cautionary note.
(8) compel an insured or third-party claimant in a case in which liability is clear to litigate for recovery of an amount due under an insurance policy by offering an amount that does not have an objectively reasonable basis in law and fact and that has not been documented in the insurer's file; The "amount" UhHaul "offered" me was less than half the cost of the medical bills they had onfile. Although never providing much "documentation" itself, U-Hull received both my medical records and the bills from my health-care providers from 12/01 through 5/02 (StateFarm would not have paid out under my auto insurance if I'd been listening to bells down in Homer): all my treatment costs were "reasonable and appropriate." Uaul also had the letter from my physician protesting the unreasonableness and inappropriateness of their treatment of me (as he pointed out, I didn't injure myself). There is no documentation justifying U-Haul's behavior, because there is none. There is ample documentation about the nature and extent of my injuries. And yet I am the one who pays (U-hawk can do whatever it wants to hinder my recovery, violate my privacy w/impunity, violate the statutes as they are written by the state).
(13) delay investigation or payment of claims by requiring submission of unnecessary or substantially repetitive claims reports and proof-of-loss forms; keel-Haul said send this, send that: I did but stopped in 3/02: why submit more when U-Haul ignored what I'd already submitted? I wrote a letter of inquiry to the DOI, which in 5/02 concluded U-Haul hadn't violated its rules. After stonewalling me for a year, the DOI gave me a copy of U-Haul's claim file, this spring: it was then that I discovered the Phoenix perverts had illegally accessed my medical records and shipped copies to Oregon--for inspection by yet more outsiders. Had I known about this illicit--I never gave my permission--interstate commerce, I would have done something before they became part of the public domain and my SSN now on lists.
(14) fail to promptly settle claims under one portion of a policy for the purpose of influencing settlements under other portions of the policy; U-Haul's litigation manger told me 1/02 that the policy limit on the driver U-Haul faulted was $50k and L'skulla said similar in a 2/02 letter, i.e., that since I had no liability, coverage of my tx would extend beyond their 1k medpay (DOI has these materials). Made sense to me since my liability in the accident was 0%.
(15) fail to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement; U-Haul has provided no explanations. Here's the URl to a copy of the letter I wrote on Statefarm's behalf ( http://www.claudiax.net/uhaul-alaska_sf.html. I am pleased U-maul finally reimbursed StateFarm). If AK law only requires that U-Haul respond to the DOI's queries in a timely manner--not that it has to so respond to me or that DOI does either--and that it is consistent w/ state laws for the perpetrators of this insurance company to a) lie to me about coverage, b) lie to AK health care providers, and c) lie about me, d) out of caprice and malice make 02 unnecessarily uhell for me (at one level is physical recovery--Uhaul actively took steps to prevent my recovery by forcing me out of treatment (5/02), f) my medical records furthering some pervert's titillation, and then more unauthorized copies of those records sent from the computers of their regional office in Phoenix to a two-bit Oregon claims adjustors group. Naturally I am extremely pissed that someone, in that general area, ran up credit card bills in my name this past spring, U-Haul, despite my asking, refuses to tell me what, specifically, happened to the copies of my medical record between 12/01 and 5/02 sent to Oregon, back then, around the time I first contacted the DOI (I hope this reads like a bitter lament, because it is).
In summary, U-Haul misrepresented its insurance policy by saying one thing and doing the opposite, failed to acknowledge even simple reason--it abided by NO sTandards, was unreasonable about everything (it insured both driver and truck and I, 0% liability: how much clearer can it be than their faulting the driver they insured?): The document that "offered" me a token 3k settlement concluded with a big bold paragraph stating that it's fraudulent to defraud, defame, deface, etc., etc. innocent insurance companies in Alaska. What does the law say about rapacious insurance companies like U-Haul's that crap all over anyone so unfortunate as to encounter them--with impunity if they have the misfortune to live in Alaska.