AN ELDERLY REQUESTING FOR HELP DATED 29MAR21

AN ELDERLY REQUESTING FOR HELP March 29, 2021 Dear Officer Christina Santos: 1. This is a continuing follow up email which I sent on May 26, 2020 with subject : "NEFARIOUS ACTS BY JOHN, THE PLUMBER MUST BE STOPPED. I filed again the same complaint to the San Diego City Attorney and received it on June 2, 2020, who probably did an initial investigation on my complaint and found that the matter is in need of a criminal prosecution and their office can not be able to help me on this. The office told me to report the criminal complaint to the District Attorney.  2. So, I searched on the website of the District Attorney and found that to report a crime my first call, as the guidelines stated, must be made to your local police agency or responsible investigating agency. Police investigators and agencies respond to criminal complaints and if they conclude charges should be filed, the case is referred to the District Attorney's Office for review, AND 3. I am an elderly and I need your help. As the discovery process pertaining to this case through negotiations with my insurer, I came to a suspicion that the claim specialist and his manager are working in conspiracy with this plumber. I suspected that these two mentioned employees might have hired this plumber to do his alleged crime for their benefit. The claim specialist and his manager refused to endorse me to their superior and refused to provide me means to write to them and also they refused to tell me where their office is located. I want to personally go to their office, particularly their legal department to report their misconducts so that corporate corrective measures are done. I have in possession of documentary evidence of proof of my allegations.  Please help. 4. I am  more than 65 years old and lives in  Caminito Derecho, San Diego, CA and my siblings had quit helping me because they have been depressed, frustrated, hopeless and confused on the manner our insurer or team of adjusters is dealing with us as in subjecting us to deliberate and intentional infliction of injury, pain and suffering through inappropriate responses for almost a year. My siblings opined that it is too much to bear and they said, "We do not want you to be subjected anymore to extreme pain, stress and suffering, that's enough you might die." That they better look on how to repair the damage ourselves though it should have been done way back June 2020 by our insurer. In addition, looking for a lawyer will be costing us a lot but we are not sure if he will be working for us and not the insurer,  as in our experience with this plumber who actually boasted...on our first meeting, "I work for homeowners, I do not work for insurance companies.." . Worse, I believe he sold us out to our insurer. Worst, they might be doing this "modus operandi" to a lot of other home owners. For the sake of our community, this must be stopped. 5. From March 23, 2021, since our last telephone conversation where I told you that I will be trying to convince my family to talk to you, but children here in the US and in the Philippines together with my wife are unanimous in saying..."Enough is enough Tatay (father). You have been subjected to tremendous torture and so with all of us..we could see you almost all nights  not sleeping at all...we know that because we too are awake and could not afford to rest in a peaceful environment in almost a year now.....when will you stop... When will you quit... after you die of a heart attack or when anyone among your family dies out of these criminals vindictiveness... remember Tatay, we are very vulnerable...we are easy targets for these criminals....who are even becoming bolder as they seemed be working under the cloak of a mighty corporate entity ..... the police might doing their best ...but their best aren't good enough....Look Tatay, when you file your informal criminal complaint...It has been almost a year now and you voluntarily expressed your willingness to testify against these criminals.... and even offered your ante mortem criminal complaint affidavit...Do they even act on your complaint?  You have sent your complaint to the City Attorney's office...they just tossed back the ball to you and did not even try to endorse you to the concerned authority....Tatay, you are telling us, Officer Santos has called me up....but they replied, how do I know if really the person who called me up is you... she even used an anonymous number.... Tatay we do not know our enemies.....Tatay, it is improper to leave you behind but we think that we should do this in this kind of situation...Tatay... if you are prepared to give your life in the things you believe is right....how about us? We wanted to lead a peaceful quiet life...you have dreamed  a lot of good things to us...Would you not be able to share us a bit more....?  6. I simply said... You know who I am....Please understand me and forgive me.... "This I would like you to know ....WHAT IS BEST FOR ME AND MY FAMILY YIELD TO WHAT IS GOOD FOR HUMANITY." 7. My eldest sent me an email pertaining to their collective sentiments about this issue. They do not want a dead hero.  And, I included it in this email in 1 below. 8. My brothers and sisters are together with my wife and children and they are pleading forcefully that I reconsider my position.They even offered me to spend their savings and shoulder the expenses for the repair of damages to the house just to give peace over the whole family. They too are worrying about these criminals...now as they looked cornered that they might retaliate any moment. And, police authorities they think would not be able to provide that sense of safety and security to us. 9. My children are avoiding being close to me. My wife has transferred her clothes to my daughter's room and slept with her. I am short of being homeless in our own house. I understood them. I knew that they were just concerned with my health and safety and peace in our family.  With this being said, I prepared an email for them as their protection from a third party who might think of this situation as an elderly abuse. I have that email document in 2 below. 10. Can I request urgently from you for a deeper objective counselling about this problem. Please help. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. 10620 Caminito Derecho San Diego, Ca 92126 Email: antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com Cp.   : 858 335 4188 1. 2. MARCH 26, 2021 ROSALINA C. BUENSUCESO MOSSES C. BUENSUCESO NOEMI C. BUENSUCESO AARON C. BUENSUCESO VERONICA C. BUENSUCESO MIRIAM C. BUENSUCESO ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL  IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DEED DATED MARCH 26, 2021  IN RELATION TO ELDERLY ABUSE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA MY DEAREST WIFE, SONS AND DAUGHTERS, I am 65 years old, and I do not know how much longer God will allow me to be here. I am sorry for the heart aches, pain, frustrations and suffering if there are which I might have imposed on you, particularly on the matter of difference in opinions of handling our problem in claims with State Farm, First American, adjusters Liu and Gueniot and contractor, Titouah. On your collective views that pursuing criminal complaints against these giant companies and mentioned personalities may endangered my life so, you advised me to just keep quiet as these suspects as they behaved appear to be bold, daring with an assumed clout of impunity in doing fraud, unlawful acts and an evil intent to acquire an expectedly huge monetary gain for themselves...simply saying they are hardened criminals.  Hence, they are not far from doing other criminal acts up to maybe, murder....they knew who you are, where you live....it would be very easy for them to do that.....we can just repair the damages in the house ourselves and care more for our safety. However, as I see it, it seems that they have been doing these criminal acts for a long time when it should have been stopped in the time they initially committed it,  if only those victims ahead of us filed and pursued criminal complaints against them. And these problems may not happen to us. We should not have been a victim ourselves. So this time it must be stopped and someone has to act, and this solemn duty, by destiny, is imposed upon me and I shall not renegade on this solemn obligation which is sacred to me, for the sake of our community. Having said that, this serves as a proof that though I am an elderly with my family opting not to assist me in this endeavor,  that I am writing this email to my family as  an : ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT on law pertaining to elderly abuse in California. Sincerely,  Tatay Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DATED 26MAR21

MARCH 26, 2021 ROSALINA C. BUENSUCESO MOSSES C. BUENSUCESO NOEMI C. BUENSUCESO AARON C. BUENSUCESO VERONICA C. BUENSUCESO MIRIAM C. BUENSUCESO ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL  IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DEED DATED MARCH 26, 2021  IN RELATION TO ELDERLY ABUSE LAWS IN CALIFORNIA MY DEAREST WIFE, SONS AND DAUGHTERS, I am 65 years old, and I do not know how much longer God will allow me to be here. I am sorry for the heart aches, pain, frustrations and suffering if there are which I might have imposed on you, particularly on the matter of difference in opinions of handling our problem in claims with State Farm, First American, adjusters Liu and Gueniot and contractor, Titouah. On your collective views that pursuing criminal complaints against these giant companies and mentioned personalities may endangered my life so, you advised me to just keep quiet as these suspects as they behaved appear to be bold, daring with an assumed clout of impunity in doing fraud, unlawful acts and an evil intent to acquire an expectedly huge monetary gain for themselves...simply saying they are hardened criminals.  Hence, they are not far from doing other criminal acts up to maybe, murder....they knew who you are, where you live....it would be very easy for them to do that.....we can just repair the damages in the house ourselves and care more for our safety. However, as I see it, it seems that they have been doing these criminal acts for a long time when it should have been stopped in the time they initially committed it,  if only those victims ahead of us filed and pursued criminal complaints against them. And these problems may not happen to us. We should not have been a victim ourselves. So this time it must be stopped and someone has to act, and this solemn duty, by destiny, is imposed upon me and I shall not renegade on this solemn obligation which is sacred to me, for the sake of our community. Having said that, this serves as a proof that though I am an elderly with my family opting not to assist me in this endeavor,  that I am writing this email to my family as  an : ABSOLUTE IRREVOCABLE UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT on law pertaining to elderly abuse in California. Sincerely,  Tatay Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

MOMENTS... 7 PENAL CODE 368 CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS DATED 24MAR21 12:41AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 7 MARCH 24, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 PENAL CODE 368- CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS  DATED 24MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF A FORMER DA ATTORNEY FROM "SHOUSE LAW" WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS",( SEE 1 BELOW) TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT BOTH OF YOU HAD ALREADY SUBJECTED ME TO  CONTINUING UNJUST, ABUSIVE, ARBITRARY, DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL, WANTON, AND PURPOSEFUL  INFLICTION OF PAIN AND MENTAL SUFFERING AND ADVISED HIM THAT YOUR COLLECTIVE  MISCONDUCTS ALTOGETHER ARE BEING AGGRAVATED BY THE FACT THAT I AM AN ELDERLY PERSON AS THIS HAD BEEN KNOWN TO YOU ON YOUR SITE VISIT ON MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2020 11 AM WHERE I SHOWED YOU MY ANTE MORTEM CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT AGAINST TITOUAH (SEE 2 BELOW) AMONG OTHER VIDEOS. SO PLEASE, MAY I HUMBLY AND MOST RESPECTFULLY AND EARNESTLY REQUEST YOU TO HELP ME LOCATE WHERE YOUR OFFICE IS, AND MEET YOU PERSONALLY SO THAT YOU MAY ENDORSE ME TO YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND LIKEWISE MEET YOUR SUPERIORS.   . IN RETROSPECTION, MAY MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO PONDER UPON IT. Again,   And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. As of today, March 24, 2021 you have not shown any manifestations yet. It is to my understanding, whether you conform or not, the statute of limitations on "the year suit against us" shall be tolled as of the date of this email, March 24, 2021. Any objection to my understanding about this issue is expectedly to be written clearly, formally,  and comprehensively, citing credible reasons or explanations in the defense of your objection. Otherwise, my understanding of the "statute of limitations" clause shall be understood by both of us,  whether you agree or not, to have prevailed over your contentions. WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso 1. PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 368 PC-CALIFORNIA ELDER ABUSE LAWS" FROM SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP SHARED FROM : https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/368/ 2. SWORN STATEMENT FROM ANTE MORTEM CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS...6 PENAL CODE 31- CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS DATED 23MAR21 1:45AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 6 MARCH 23, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 PENAL CODE 31- CALIFORNIA  AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS DATED 23MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF A FORMER DA ATTORNEY FROM "SHOUSE LAW" WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS", TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN CHARGE IN NOVEMBER 2020 WHEN THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE CRIME OF VANDALISM ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT TITOUAH AND BEING PERSON IN CHARGE WHEN THE DAMAGES ON VANDALISM WAS DISCOVERED, REPORTED AND FILED, CONSEQUENTLY,  HE HAD THE OBLIGATION TO ISSUE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ABOUT IT, THEN ISSUE A FORMAL APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF OUR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES DUE TO VANDALISM COMMITTED BY TITOUAH. IF MR. GUENIOT REFUSED, AND YOU DO NOTHING TO INSIST IT, THEN, THE FBI MIGHT RAISE THE QUESTION, "Why are you allowing yourself alone to be implicated with the crimes committed by Titouah despite of Mr. Gueniot's absolute eventual culpability?" IN RETROSPECTION, MAY MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU TO PONDER UPON IT. Again,   And in my humble opinion consider showing manifestations of your intentions to withdraw from this conspiracy when you still have time. As of today, March 23, 2021 you have not shown any manifestations yet. It is to my understanding, whether you conform or not, the statute of limitations on "the year suit against us" shall be tolled as of the date of this email, March 23, 2021. Any objection to my understanding about this issue is expectedly to be written clearly, formally,  and comprehensively, citing credible reasons or explanations in the defense of your objection. Otherwise, my understanding of the "statute of limitations" clause shall be understood by both of us,  whether you agree or not, to have prevailed over your contentions. WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "PENAL CODE 31-CALIFORNIA AIDING AND ABETTING LAWS" FROM SHOUSE CALIFORNIA LAW GROUP SHARED FROM :     https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/31/

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x MOMENTS ...5 :The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate DATED 21MAR21 sent 22MAR21 5:42AM

Claim Number 55-06c6-44x  MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 5 MARCH 20, 2021 GORDON LIU CLAIMS SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE  RE: Claim Number 55-06C6-44X        Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 Date of Loss :  April 26, 2020 The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate DATED 21MAR21 Dear Mr. Liu, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY THROUGH THE WORDS OF AUTHORS WHO SHARED THIS PRECIOUS ARTICLE, "The Carrier's Duty To Investigate", TO CONVINCE MR. GUENIOT THAT HE IS MANDATED BY LAW TO INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY ALL THE CLAIMS PRESENTED BEFORE HIM. IF HE EVER REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, HE WOULD BE SUBJECTING STATE FARM TO COSTLY PUNITIVE AND  COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND AS TO MY RESEARCH, MIGHT BE MORE THAN  ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ($100 MILLION) RIGHT NOW. NOW, THROUGH THE COURTESY OF  THE "ADVOCATE " MAGAZINE AND BENEVOLENCE OF THE AUTHORS, Mr. Michael L. Cohen and Ms. Heather M. Mckeon, proudly, I am showing that article below.  Again,   WE WOULD WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS DISPUTE WITH STATE FARM IN GOOD FAITH UNTIL ALL  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso The Carrier’s Duty To Investigate An insurer’s failure to completely investigate a claim is a crucial part of any bad-faith case Michael L. Cohen Heather M. McKeon   2015 August Michael L. Cohen  Michael L. Cohen is a principal at Cohen McKeon LLP. Cohen received his J.D. in 1992 from Harvard Law School, and was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He devotes a substantial part of the practice to representing policyholders in cases involving insurance coverage. Heather M. McKeon  Heather M. McKeon is a principal at Cohen McKeon LLP. McKeon graduated in 1996 with honors from Georgetown Law Center. She devotes a substantial part of the practice to representing policyholders in cases involving insurance coverage. Insurance carriers have a duty to investigate all claims. This duty is the same regardless of the kind of insurance at issue. This duty applies to first-party claims – that is, when a policyholder has submitted a claim to her insurance carrier, such as a claim under a homeowner’s policy or a disability policy. This duty also applies to third-party claims – that is, when a policyholder asks her liability carrier to provide her with a defense when she has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit. The duty to investigate is an affirmative duty. A carrier cannot simply sit back and wait for the insured to provide the information necessary to establish coverage. For instance, a carrier cannot request an insured to submit an estimate for a property claim. The carrier has the obligation to get its own as part of its on-going duty to investigate. The same is true for carriers investigating whether they are obligated to provide a defense to a lawsuit. In a third-party situation, a carrier has an affirmative obligation to find coverage even if it is not readily apparent from the allegations in the underlying complaint. A carrier’s failure to fully and completely investigate a claim at its submission can result in the imposition of bad-faith damages in a subsequent lawsuit. This is true even if coverage is eventually afforded, if the delay in payment can be linked to a carrier’s failure to immediately and fully investigate the claim. Accordingly, an insured should always focus on proving that a carrier did not fully investigate a claim in all bad-faith lawsuits. Full, fair and thorough investigation Insurance companies have the obligation to conduct a full, fair and thorough investigation of a claim. In every insurance policy there is an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing that neither the insurance company nor the insured will do anything to injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement. (Comunale v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658; CACI 2332.) “Among the most critical factors bearing on the insurer’s good faith is the adequacy of its investigation of the claim.” (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Mktg., Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 879.) Indeed, insurance companies have “special obligations” to promptly investigate claims. (McCormick v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1048.) If the insurance company fails to promptly investigate claims, usually within 40 days of receipt of notice of claim, it can be subject to liability in tort for bad faith. (Waller v. Truck Ins. Ex., Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 36; 10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) Failure to investigate can constitute bad faith Failure to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation can be the sole basis for a finding of bad faith. Because the duty to investigate is so critical, it is possible to win a bad-faith case simply by showing a lack of investigation. For an insurance company to fulfill its obligation of good faith and fair dealing, it must not impair the right of the insured to receive the benefits of the agreement, and must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. (Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 818.) In other words, a one-sided investigation is not sufficient to meet the carrier’s obligation to investigate, because the carrier is not giving the interests of the insured the proper consideration. An example of a one-sided investigation would be if a carrier fails to interview all available witnesses. This is especially true if one of the ignored witnesses had information relevant to coverage, but the carrier refused to interview them. Because courts have placed such a high importance on a carrier’s duty to investigate, an insured’s ability to show that he told a carrier that a third-party witness had information bearing on coverage and the carrier ignored him, can be a very persuasive piece of evidence in a bad-faith case. As is true in every bad-faith case, the insured must show that the insurance company acted unreasonably or without proper cause in withholding benefits. (Egan, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 817.) An insurance company acts unreasonably or without proper cause if it fails to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all the bases of the plaintiff’s claim. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066.) Thus, a reasonable and proper investigation into the claims of the insured must always be full, fair, and thorough. (Ibid.) In fact, juries are properly instructed that a carrier must both diligently investigate a claim and look for evidence that supports coverage. (CACI 2332.) Specifically, CACI 2332 states that a: “Carrier acted unreasonably or without proper cause if it failed to conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all of the bases of the claim. When investigating plaintiff’s claim, carrier had a duty to diligently search for and consider evidence that supported coverage of the claimed loss.” The duty to investigate is the only obligation of a carrier that has its own bad-faith instruction. The other obligations are jointly listed in CACI 2337. This demonstrates the level of importance that California has placed on a carrier’s obligation to investigate. Failue to investigate defeats “genuine dispute” defense Failure to investigate can defeat the “genuine dispute” defense. When an insurance company chooses to deny coverage, yet a reasonable investigation would have brought forth facts evidencing that the claim was covered under the policy, the insurance company’s failure to investigate breaches its implied covenant. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1074.) If the carrier seeks to discover evidence that supports its position by relying only on one expert and ignoring the opinion of the insured’s expert, the insurance company cannot claim that there existed a genuine dispute regarding coverage. (Id. at 1066.) A common defense to a bad-faith case is the “genuine dispute” doctrine, which allows a carrier to seek summary adjudication of the bad faith cause of action if the carrier hires an independent expert to “investigate” the claim. However, if the carrier’s expert ignores evidence that supports the insured’s position or fails to explore all available evidence, then the carrier cannot rely on the expert, because the carrier has an independent duty to investigate. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1074.) Moreover, by failing to investigate, the insurance company has deprived itself of the ability to make a full and fair evaluation of the claim. (Ibid.) There can be no application of the “genuine dispute” defense without evidence of a fair and full investigation by the carrier. Investigate all grounds for coverage The insurance company must investigate all possible grounds for coverage. In order to perform a reasonable and proper investigation, insurance companies must also investigate all bases for the insured’s claim. (Egan, 24 Cal.3d at 819 [“to protect [an insured’s] interests it is essential that an insurer fully inquire into possible bases that might support the insured’s claim”].) California courts have held that in order to perform a reasonable and proper investigation, insurance companies should neither selectively choose which facts to investigate nor should they ignore contrary information which may support the insured’s claim. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 720-21.) The California Supreme Court held that, “a trier of fact may find that an insurer acted unreasonably if the insurer ignores evidence available to it which supports the claim.” (Ibid.) Insurance companies must search for and consider evidence that supports coverage for the claim. Thus, insurance companies cannot close their eyes to evidence that supports coverage and focus solely on the evidence that denies coverage. Too narrow a focus of investigation? It is bad faith for a carrier to focus its investigation solely on evidence that might avoid or eliminate coverage. California courts have consistently held that insurance carriers may not exclusively focus on information and facts that provide evidence for the denial of a claim. (Wilson, at 721.) “When investigating a claim, an insurance company has a duty to diligently search for evidence which supports its insured’s claim. If it seeks to discover only the evidence that defeats the claim it holds its own interest above that of the insured.” (Mariscal v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1620; Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721 [“the insurer may not just focus on those facts which justify denial of the claim”].) Moreover, an insurance carrier acts in bad faith not only when it fails to investigate, but when it puts its own interests above those of the insured. The insurance company cannot ignore evidence in support of the claim or elect to focus on just those facts it contends support denial. (Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721.) Insurance carriers cannot put restrictions on their adjusters that limit their ability to fully investigate a claim. Adjusters must be taught and trained by insurance carriers to look for coverage, not ways to defeat coverage. (See Downey Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1097-99.) In Downey, the insurance carrier had instructed its claims adjusters to focus on ways to defeat claims. The court held that the insurance company’s conduct placed their own interests above that of the insured, and awarded punitive damages. Conducting discovery into the training of claims adjusters is critical in proving a lack of investigation by the insurance carrier. For instance, if a claims adjuster is trained to try to reach an insured three times, but is allowed to record all three attempts within one hour, then you can prove that the insurance company is trying to create the illusion of an investigation without actually conducting one. Clearly, attempting to contact an insured, without any intention of actually interviewing the insured, is not a sufficient investigation. Another example of insurance carriers teaching their adjusters to create an illusion of an investigation without really conducting one, is a carrier requesting all of an injured party’s medical records without any intention of actually having a proper expert review them. Once you can pierce the illusion of an investigation by showing there was no real attempt to gather information, proving the bad-faith case becomes much easier. Evidence that might establish coverage A carrier must consider all evidence that might establish coverage. Denying a claim on a basis unfounded in the facts, or contradicted by facts known to the insurance company, is unreasonable. (Wilson, 42 Cal.4th at 721.) Once an insurance carrier is in possession of evidence that supports coverage, the carrier must act on that evidence. Therefore, any discovery in a bad- faith case should focus on creating timelines of the insurance company’s investigation. Questions should elicit responses showing when an insurance company knew a fact that supported coverage that the carrier ignored. In the alternative, if facts supporting coverage were discovered later, then the discovery should focus on proving how easy it would have been for the insurer to get access to the evidence supporting coverage. California courts have held that an insurance company can breach the covenant of good faith simply for objectively unreasonable conduct, regardless of the actor’s motive. (Bosetti v. United States Life Ins. Co. in City of N.Y. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1236.) In other words, a carrier’s failure to conduct a full and fair investigation does not have to be on the grounds that the carrier has ill will towards the insured, but simply because the carrier failed to properly review all of the records in its possession or interview all available witnesses. In fact, “if the insurer denies benefits unreasonably (i.e., without any reasonable basis for such denial), it may be exposed to the full array of tort remedies, including possible punitive damages.” (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1073.) Therefore, a failure to investigate is sufficient to support a finding of punitive damages. There are only a couple of caveats to a carrier’s almost absolute duty to investigate. For example, the duty to perform a reasonable and proper investigation arises only after the insured has substantially complied in good faith with the policy’s notice provisions. (Cal. Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 57 [“without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims’ procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurance company to investigate the claim”].) In other words, a carrier does not have an obligation to investigate a claim that it does not have knowledge of from the insured. However, the insurance company must acknowledge receipt of notice from the insured within 15 days and must begin its investigation within that 15-day period. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.5(b) & (e).) The insurance carrier must accept or deny the claim for coverage, either in whole or in part, within 40 days of notice. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) Therefore, the insurance company is supposed to complete its investigation within 40 days, but this rarely happens and the carrier is allowed to extend the 40 days with notice to the insured that it is still investigating the claim. (10 C.C.R. § 2695.7(b).) But if the carrier continues its investigation for too long after the 40 days, an insured may be able to use that fact in a subsequent bad-faith case as evidence of intentional delay by the carrier. The second caveat is that the reasonableness of the insurance company’s decisions and actions must be evaluated based on the information that was available at the time the decision was made. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1063.) If a carrier could not legitimately have learned a crucial piece of information at the time it denied the claim, then it cannot be responsible for failing to conduct a full investigation. However, the carrier has an on-going obligation to its insureds, so once it is made aware of the information that affords coverage, the carrier has obligation to re-open the claim and its investigation. If the carrier refuses to re-open its investigation after being presented with evidence that potentially affords coverage, then the carrier has now breached its duty to investigate. Conclusion Carriers must conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of all grounds for a claim. The failure to investigate is a crucial part of any bad-faith case. Courts have repeatedly found the failure to investigate not only supports a finding of bad faith but also punitive damages. An insurance company’s failure to investigate can be as obvious as not reviewing all records or interviewing all witnesses. However, sometimes more thorough discovery is needed to prove the lack of an investigation because the insurance company has successfully created an illusion of an investigation. Proving an insurance company’s failure to investigate should always be one of the main objectives of a bad-faith lawsuit