LOUIS E. GUENIOT TEAM MANAGER CLAIM SPECIALIST
STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE
RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x
Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7
DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020
005 STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57 DATED 14DEC20 12:00PM
NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57. NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 2695.5. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A CLEAR AND CONCISE DENIAL LETTER LIKE "As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. " WHERE IN YOUR EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 YOU MENTIONED OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 3. YOU ARE SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5) FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN? WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU. BUT I ASSURE YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU CONTINUALLY DISPLAY OBVIOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH.
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57
REPEATED MISCONDUCTS
FROM
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES
MULTIPLE MISCONDUCTS
1 TO 8 AND 9/10/11/12/13 AND 14
AND 15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/26/27/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/35/36
AND 37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52/53/54/55/56
BEING NOT DISPUTED, OBJECTED AND HABITUALLY REPEATED WITH IMPUNITY. HENCE, PROVEN TO BE INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS, WILLFUL, WANTON, OPPRESSIVE AND OUTRAGEOUS
AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Dear Messrs Gueniot and Liu:
PLEASE SEE,
As Mr. Gueniot responded to email as shown next: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 DATED 14DEC20 11:38AMNOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 2695.5. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECTS WHICH TEND TO CREATE MORE CONFUSIONS.
THIS SHOWS: EVIDENCE OF THE 57TH RECORDED MISCONDUCT, PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF, REPEATED HABITUALLY, INTENTIONALLY, DELIBERATELY OF MISCONDUCTS RESPONDING TO EMAILS SUBJECT OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION AND/OR RESPONDING TO EMAILS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM TO RESPOND AND/OR RESPONDING TO SEVERAL EMAILS ONCE LEAVING OTHER EMAILS NOT RESPONDED. AND VIOLATION OF DUTIES UPON RECEIPT OF COMMUNICATION SECTION 2695.
HE HAD SHOWN A TOTAL OF FIFTY SEVEN (57) RECORDED INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES AND/OR MISCONDUCTS TO SOW CONFUSION AND INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY DERAIL AND DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AGAIN, HIS INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57 THOUGH WORTHLESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CONTENTS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE QUESTION POSTED FOR HIM TO ADDRESS AND/OR OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION AND/OR PROFESSIONALLY DISRESPECTFUL RESPONSE BUT BECOME A BIG HELP TO BOLSTER MANIFESTATION OF BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST STATE FARM.
YOUR ACTIONS, MR. GUENIOT TEND TO SHOW THAT YOU MIGHT BE THE REAL MASTERMIND OF TITOUAH'S CRIMES.
|
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57 DATED 14DEC20 2:37PM
STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57 DATED 14DEC20 12:00PM
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57 INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO EMAIL:Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 DATED 14DEC20 11:38AM
NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 2695.5. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECTS WHICH TEND TO CREATE MORE CONFUSIONS. DENIALS AND ASSERTIONS NEEDED TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, OTHERWISE, CRIMINALS MERE SAYING EMPTY WORDS OF DENIAL AND STATEMENTS WOULD NEVER BE CONVICTED.
CLEARER READING BELOW OF THE EMAIL SCREENSHOT ABOVE: Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
I’m writing to acknowledge receipt of the email below as you have requested.
As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. Our position as communicated in our letters dated May 6, 2020, June 12, 2020, July 13, 2020, July 17, 2020, July 31, 2020 and responsive emails are unchanged. The May 6, 2020 letter included the applicable policy language. This claim file remains closed. All conditions previously quoted still apply.
Your emails contain allegations of misconduct. All such contentions are denied. You should not interpret our silence as any agreement with you, or any waiver of our rights under the policy or law. We reserve all rights under the policy and the law.
Sincerely,
Louis
Louis E Gueniot III Claim Team Manager NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 57. NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 2695.5. Section 2695.5. Duties upon Receipt of Communications(b) Upon receiving any communication from a claimant, regarding a claim, that reasonably suggests that a response is expected, every licensee shall immediately, but in no event more than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of that communication, furnish the claimant with a complete response based on the facts as then known by the licensee. This subsection shall not apply to require communication with a claimant subsequent to receipt by the licensee of a notice of legal action by that claimant. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A CLEAR AND CONCISE DENIAL LETTER LIKE "As I previously communicated to you on November 13, 2020, we have done our best to answer your questions and provide a reasonable explanation for the basis of the denial of the claim based on the policy language. " WHERE IN YOUR EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 YOU MENTIONED OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 3. YOU ARE SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE YOU MADE TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5) FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN. WHAT YOU HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU. BUT I ASSURE YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU CONTINUALLY DISPLAY OBVIOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH. |
Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 DATED 14DEC20 11:38AM
LOUIS E. GUENIOT TEAM MANAGER CLAIM SPECIALIST
STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE
RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x
Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7
DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 DATED 14DEC20 10:00AM
NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : NUMBER 1. MR. GUENIOT, THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER ON MY CLAIMS FOR SECONDARY DAMAGES FILED IN JUNE 2020 AND VANDALISM WHICH COVERAGE I DISCOVERED JUST IN NOVEMBER 4, 2020 WHEN YOU BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. TO WIT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THEM ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 2695.5. NUMBER 2. DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION. IT IS AN IMPROPER RESPONSE FOR RESPONDING TO EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECTS WHICH TEND TO CREATE MORE CONFUSIONS.
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56
REPEATED MISCONDUCTS
FROM
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES
MULTIPLE MISCONDUCTS
1 TO 8 AND 9/10/11/12/13 AND 14
AND 15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/26/27/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/35/36
AND 37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52/53/54/55
BEING NOT DISPUTED, OBJECTED AND HABITUALLY REPEATED WITH IMPUNITY. HENCE, PROVEN TO BE INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS, WILLFUL, WANTON, OPPRESSIVE AND OUTRAGEOUS
AND BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Dear Messrs Gueniot and Liu:
PLEASE SEE,
As Mr. Gueniot responded to email as shown next: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x CONCISE LETTER OF DENIAL REQUEST DATED 2DEC20 6:52AM
|
SO, MR. GUENIOT, AGAIN, MAY I REQUEST FOR YOUR KIND UNDERSTANDING. WE NEED TO HAVE OUR NEGOTIATION ORGANIZED AND RECORDS CLEAR, SO THAT WE MAY AVOID CONFUSION. OBVIOUSLY, IT APPEARS THAT YOU WANTED MUCH EAGERLY TO CLOSE THE NEGOTIATION AND THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS. HOWEVER, YOUR EFFORTS ARE IN VAIN AS I SEE YOUR INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES NOW ARE WANING TO ONLY FEW OR THREE (3) WEAK, SENILE FEEBLE AND DESPICABLE PARAGRAPHS AND THUS, SIMPLY THIS FACT LEAD ME TO THINK YOU REALLY JUST WANTED TO AVOID QUESTIONS, WHICH ANSWERS OR NO ANSWER FROM YOU TEND TO SPILL THE BEANS OF MOST PROBABLY TITOUAH AND YOUR CRIMES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM SIMPLY BY READING THE QUERIES SPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR YOU, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR ANSWERS.
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. THIS EMAIL RESPONSE IS INTENDED FOR YOUR COLLECTION OF NEW INFORMATION ON INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES WHICH TO MY TALLY RIGHT NOW ROSE TO 56. IN OTHER WORDS, FIFTY-SIX (56) COUNTS OF STATE FARM RECORDED MISCONDUCTS. THOSE UNRECORDED MISCONDUCTS, I AM STILL COLLECTING THEM AND I PROMISE I WILL ADD THEM TO THE LIST WHICH INFORMATION YOU MAY STILL WANTED TO KNOW.
PLEASE RESTRICT ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATENESS AND CONFUSION.
Please be reminded that your DENIAL LETTER DATED MAY 6, 2020 was prepared, relayed to us, sent and read by us in just a few minutes unlike the way you are habitually doing WHICH MEANS OBVIOUSLY IT HAD BEEN PART OF A PLAN CONCEIVED AND PREPARED MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso |
STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 DATED 14DEC20 10:00AM
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 56 INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO EMAIL:Claim Number 55-06c6-44x CONCISE LETTER OF DENIAL REQUEST DATED 2DEC20 6:52AM
|
SHELL CIRCUMVENTED RA 7641
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|