Monday, March 16, 2020
Claim Number 55-06c6-44x INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 70 DATED 15MAR21 11:51AM
MARCH 15, 2021 CLAIM SPECIALIST
STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE
RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x
Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7
DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020
STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 70 DATED 15MAR21 10:19AM
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
SO, PLEASE TELL MR. GUENIOT, AGAIN, MAY I REQUEST FOR HIS KIND UNDERSTANDING BUT HE DELIBERATELY, INTENTIONALLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY REFUSED. WE NEED TO HAVE OUR NEGOTIATION ORGANIZED AND RECORDS CLEAR, SO THAT WE MAY AVOID CONFUSION. OBVIOUSLY, IT APPEARS THAT HE WANTED MUCH EAGERLY TO CLOSE THE NEGOTIATION AND THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS. HOWEVER, YOUR EFFORTS ARE IN VAIN AS I SEE HIS INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES NOW ARE WANING TO ONLY FEW OR FIVE (5) OR THREE (3) WEAK, OR TWO (2) 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 HIS CRIMES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM SIMPLY BY READING THE QUERIES SPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR HIM, WITH OR WITHOUT HIS ANSWERS. NEXT ARE MY PROOFS THAT BY SIMPLY READING THE QUERIES ESPECIALLY CRAFTED FOR BOTH OF YOU, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR ANSWERS RELEVANT FACTS CAN BE VERY WELL ESTABLISHED TO EXPOSE YOUR GUILT. MR. LIU, KINDLY DIGEST THE FOLLOWING EMAIL I SENT FOR YOU DATED AUGUST 6, 2020 WITH SUBJECT: SHOW ACTIONS TO PROVE YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TITOUAH;
AUGUST 6, 2020 GORDON LIU CLAIM SPECIALIST STATE FARM HOME INSURANCE RE: Claim Number 55-06c6-44x Policy Number 77-C3-B499-7 DATE OF LOSS: April 26, 2020 SHOW ACTIONS TO PROVE YOU ARE NOT PARTYTO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY JOHN TITOUAH
Dear Mr. Liu: While waiting for your response on the THIRTY-FOUR (34) COUNTS OF BAD FAITH EVIDENCES dated July 31, 2020, PLEASE SEE, PAR. 4 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER You wrote, "Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied. We handle each claim on its own merits. State Farm and I have complied with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the investigation and handling of your claim." You wrote, " Your email contains allegations of misconduct by me and State Farm. All such contentions are denied." COMMENTS : Mere words of denials to the allegations of misconduct by State Farm and you are worthless without showing actions proving that State Farm and you are not party to his crime. TO WIT, AMONG OTHERS: STATE FARM AND YOU ARE MOST PROBABLY PARTY TO HIS CRIMES OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING A RIGGED FRAUDULENT VIDEO AND BY WAY OF VANDALISM, DIGGING A HUGE EXCESS EXCAVATION MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ACCESS PIPE WITHIN THE SLAB AND REPAIR PIPE, being you as: 1. THE MAIN BENEFICIARY OF THE RIGGED FRAUDULENT VIDEO PRESENTATION AND STATEMENTS AS YOU USED AND RELIED ON THEM TO DENY OUR CLAIM. 2. DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE REPORTED HIS CRIME TO CONCERNED POLICE AGENCIES AND THIS FACT HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU, I AM PERPLEXED WHY YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN OR WRITTEN CONCRETE ACTIONS TO INVESTIGATE OR AT LEAST VERIFY FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD BY TITOUAH OR WRITE ACTIONS TAKEN TO SEEK HELP FROM THE POLICE IN INVESTIGATING TITOUAH. 3. HAVING BEEN VISITED THE SITE OF HIS CRIME AND INVITED PURPOSELY TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EXCAVATION, BUT YOU DID NOT TAKE MEASUREMENTS OR EVEN AT LEAST BRING WITH YOU A MEASURING TOOL AND WORSE, YOU STILL MAINTAIN YOUR POSITION OF 10, 8 TO 9 AND 8 INCHES DEPTH OF THE EXCAVATION IN YOUR DENIAL LETTERS, WHICH ARE FAR FROM THE ACTUAL DEPTH MEASUREMENT OF 4 TO 6 INCHES. 4. HAVING YOU STATED THAT " It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak.", You wrote, "what they charge, " MEANS THAT YOU IMPLICITLY ADMITTED THAT THE PLUMBER TITOUAH CHARGES FEES AND YOU PAID HIM FOR THE SERVICES HE HAD RENDERED FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE CREATED A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITH TITOUAH WHERE YOU ARE HIS CLIENT FOR THE RIGGED VIDEO PRESENTATION HE PRODUCED. DOUBTLESS, THAT TITOUAH AND YOU ARE PARTNERS IN THIS ENDEAVOR . AND, THEREFORE, YOU CAN NOT DENY THAT STATE FARM AND YOU ARE PARTY TO THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY TITOUAH. 5. HAVING YOU STATED THAT " It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak." MEANS THAT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN, " the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak." THEN IT FOLLOWS YOU NEED TO CONTACT A PLUMBER WHO DISCOVERED, LOCATED AND REPAIRED THE LEAK. BUT YOUR PROBLEM IS, THERE IS NO PLUMBER WHO DISCOVERED NOR LOCATED THE LEAK, BUT THE FACT IS IT IS US WHO DISCOVERED THE LEAK NOT JOHN TITOUAH AND NEITHER HE REPAIRED THE LEAK. THEREFOR, THE RIGHT PERSON TO TALK TO IS NOT JOHN TITOUAH BUT US. WHY NOT TALK TO US AND IGNORE TITOUAH? IF NOT BOTH OF YOU ARE PARTNERS TO HIS CRIMES, HOW COME UP TO THIS TIME BOTH OF YOU ARE ONE TOGETHER IN HIS LIES? SOURCE FOR NO. 4 and 5 ON PAR.4 June 12, 2020 denial letter
You wrote, "As far as State Farm's relationship with All Express Plumbing and John Titouah, all insurance carriers after a water loss has been immediately contacts and discusses causation and location of pipe breaks. It does not matter which plumber is called, who they worked for, and what they charge, the only way to confirm the Predominant cause of water losses is to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak. In regards to the costs of a re-route, that would be up to the discretion of the Insured. 1. You wrote, "what they charge " meaning, in other words, plumber John charges fees and you paid him in return for his rigged live video presentation and fraudulent statements. How much did he charge you and the amount you paid him? 2. You wrote, "to contact and discuss the facts of the discharge directly with the plumber who discovered, located, and repaired the leak. " Why talk to John Titouah extensively and rely heavily on his statements? John Titouah, Yes he is a plumber. But he is not the one who discovered the leak. It is us. He is not the one who located the leak, It is us; and he is not the one who repaired the leak. Hence, John Titouah is not the right person to talk to but us. So talk to us not John. AGAIN, JOHN DID NOT DISCOVER, LOCATE AND REPAIR the leak. Therefore, he can not be called to testify on matters he did not witness or see.
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and kindly inform me when I expect a reply to this email.
Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso END OF EMAIL FOR MR. LIU DATED AUGUST 6, 2020
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 70. IN OTHER WORDS, SEVENTY (70) 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.
MOREOVER, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE REFUGE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS A LEGAL DEFENSE TO DISCOURAGE ME IN PURSUING GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY INFORM YOU THAT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR UNABATED CONTINUING VIOLATION IN MULTIPLE WRONGFUL ACTS, FAILURES TO ACT, OR DECISIONS SUCH THAT THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN ON THIS COLLECTED MALFEASANCE ONLY WHEN THE DEFENDANT, YOU MR. GUENIOT AND MR. LIU CEASES YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED YOUR IMPROPER CONDUCT; HENCE, THE ONE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD TO FILE SUIT AGAINST STATE FARM HAS NOT BEEN STARTED YET.
PLEASE RESTRICT ISSUES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO AVOID INAPPROPRIATENESS AND CONFUSION. PLEASE NOTE THAT WRITING A LOUSY REPLY TAKEN BASED FROM A TEMPLATE JUST A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS TO DEVIATE ATTENTION FROM WHAT YOU ARE PROVEN YOU ARE HABITUALLY DOING. SO IT WON'T MATTER ANYMORE, WHETHER IT TOOK YOU A FEW MINUTES OR HOURS OR FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BECAUSE IT DID NOT ERASE NOR BLEMISH THE ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE MAY 6, 2020 DENIAL LETTER WAS RELAYED AND SENT TO US IN A FEW MINUTES IS ABSOLUTELY PART OF YOUR PLAN CONCEIVED AND PREPARED MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Antonio L. Buensuceso |
Sunday, March 15, 2020
STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 70 DATED 15MAR21 10:19AM
INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 70 INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO THREE (3) EMAILS:STATE FARM INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 69 DATED 11MAR21 11:42AM
NOTES ON IMPROPRIETY : PERTAINING TO INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE 70 NUMBER 1. MR. LIU, MAY I MOST RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU THAT YOU, LIKE MR. GUENIOT, ARE AN EDUCATED MAN AND YOU ARE ALSO NOT DUMB, PLEASE PARDON ME FOR THE WORD BUT I AM FORCED LIKEWISE, TO WRITE IT IN ACCOUNT OF YOUR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL IDIOCY AND MALEVOLENCE. THE ASSISTANCE SOUGHT IS, PLEASE PROVIDE ME 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 TOGETHER WITH MR. GUENIOT, 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. MR. LIU, THE EMAIL SHOWN NEXT : Claim Number 55-06c6-44x WANTED RIGHT PERSON TO NEGOTIATE DATED 12MAR21 1:49PM
WHERE I PURPOSELY ASK YOU THAT PLEASE ENDORSE ME TO THE RIGHT PERSON TO NEGOTIATE WITH AND SPECIFICALLY WROTE THAT I AM SENDING YOU THIS EMAIL EXCLUSIVELY JUST FOR YOU, AND RESPECTFULLY WARN YOU IF I EVER MR. GUENIOT EVER SENT ME COMMUNICATIONS AGAIN HE IS SUBJECTING ME TO RISKS OF LOSING MY LIFE DUE TO HYPERTENSION BUT OUT OF LACK OF PRUDENCE AND CONCERN TO MY WELL BEING, HE DID SENT ME AN EMAIL DESPITE MY GRAVE OBJECTION FOR HIM TO DO SO AND WORSE, HE THREATENED ME THAT THROUGH HIM STATE FARM WILL NOT RESPOND AS IF MR. GUENIOT OWNS STATE FARM AND NO OTHER PERSON HIGHER THAN HIM. HE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF OR DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE THAT HE IS AUTHORIZED BY STATE FARM TOP MANAGEMENT ON HIS DECISION. MR. LIU PLEASE SHOW EVIDENCE THAT MR. GUENIOT IS AUTHORIZED BY STATE FARM TOP MANAGEMENT TO ISSUE THE FINAL DECISION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. NUMBER 3. MR. LIU, DELIBERATE INTENTION TO SOW CONFUSION AND NO INTENTION TO CLEAR CONFUSION _ A PATTERN OUTLINED FROM THE BEGINNING UNTIL NOW. LIKE, 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 EMAIL IN NOVEMBER 13, 2020 MR. GUENIOT EVER MENTIONED OF MY DAMAGES CLAIM FROM VANDALISM COMMITTED BY YOUR INFORMANT PLUMBER TITOUAH? NUMBER 4. MR. LIU, MR. IS SAYING "we have done our best" WHAT EFFORTS HAVE HE MADE TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION? WHAT HE HAVE WRITTEN ME ARE JUST A TEMPLATE OF EMPTY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FIVE (5) FEEBLE MINDED OR FEW INSANE SENTENCES, REPEATEDLY ALL OVER AGAIN? WHAT HE HAVE DONE BEST IS TO SOW MORE AND MORE CONFUSIONS TO DETER ME CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS WITH HIM AND SUBJECT OUR CLAIM TO FRIVOLOUS DELAYS. BUT I ASSURE BOTH OF YOU, I WILL CONTINUE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU THOUGH YOU BOTH ARE CONTINUALLY DISPLAYING OBVIOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF BAD FAITH AND/OR I WILL EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS AVAILABLE BE IT WITHIN THE PREMISES OF STATE FARM, THROUGH MS. TIFFANY WYATT OR THROUGH THE MANAGERS ABOVE YOU OR THROUGH OUR INSURANCE AGENT, MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY OR THROUGH PUBLIC ADJUSTING SERVICES. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT I WILL CONTINUE MY GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOU AND STATE FARM UNTIL I HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE. NUMBER 5. MR. LIU, PLEASE DO NOT LET MR. GUENIOT DERAIL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT TOWARD A HOLISTIC RESOLUTION. THIS EMAIL WHICH MR. GUENIOT IS RESPONDING TO IS INTENDED FOR MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY INITIALLY AND NOT FOR HIM TO ANSWER. I FURNISHED HIM A COPY OF IT FOR THE SAKE OF COURTESY JUST TO LET HIM KNOW THAT I AM PRUDENTLY EXPLORING OPTIONS TO NEGOTIATE THESE INSURANCE CLAIMS BETWEEN RESPECTABLE AND HONORABLE MEN. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY DESERVES MEN OF HIGH HONOR AND INTEGRITY IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE IS SHOWING. PLEASE LET MR. EDDIE ATCHLEY DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO HELP US OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT. NUMBER 6. MR. LIU, PLEASE INFORM MR. GUENIOT THAT EMAIL WITH SUBJECT : MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION IS ADDRESSED TO YOU AND SPECIFICALLY ONLY FOR YOU. HOWEVER, MR. GUENIOT BEING DISRESPECTFUL AND INAPPROPRIATE, RESPONDED TO THIS EMAIL WHICH IS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM. HIGHLIGHTS : CONTINUING REITERATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTERS ON VANDALISM FILED IN NOVEMBER 2020 AND SECONDARY DAMAGES CLAIM FILED IN JUNE 2020. NUMBER 1. MR. LIU, AS I CONSTANTLY ASKING 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 HE BELATEDLY FURNISHED ME WITH THE COPY OF THE POLICY BEYOND ON WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION. WHY YOU, MR. LIU NEED TO PROVIDE A CONCISE SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL LETTER? 1. Your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. State Farm had an affirmed denial letter dated July 17, 2020. On paragraph 3 of this letter, YOU, Mr. Gordon Liu, wrote the following: "In your request that our correspondences be re-organized and re-written, we respectfully respond that we will not. Please refer to May 6, 2020 correspondence and specifically the one year suit against us paragraph. The one year cited begins again as of the date of this letter." Meaning, according to YOU, Mr. Liu, the one year suit begins again as of the date of that letter, July 17, 2020 and not June 12, 2020 as in your responses dated February 11, 2021 and February 25, 2021. Mr. Liu wrote July 17, 2020 and not June 12, 2020. Please read my supporting document for date July 17, 2020 as the beginning of the one year statute of limitations : STATE FARM RESPONSE DATED JULY 29, 2020 WITH ATTACHED AFFIRMED THIRD DENIAL LETTER DATED JULY 17, 2020 . Without prejudice to the continuing violations doctrine which I have invoked, as far as State Farm is concerned the date July 17, 2020 shall prevail over June 12, 2020 because July 17, 2020 is the date specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 of the July 17, 2020 denial letter. If you still insist it to be June 12, 2020, then this is deliberate and intentional misrepresentation, a manifestation of bad faith and futile efforts to sow more confusions. 2. Again, your denial letter must be accurate and not confusing. ON PAR.2 June 12, 2020 DENIAL LETTER, YOU, Mr. Liu wrote,
"his written report " This means on the denial letter dated June 12, 2020, YOU, Mr. Liu, impressed upon us a copy of the written report of JOHN TITOUAH. BUT HOW COME, YOU, MR. LIU, IS DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF JOHN TITOUAH's REPORT ON PAR.3 JULY 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JOHN TITOUAH WAS PROVIDED VERBALLY AND NOT IN WRITTEN FORM. PAR. 3 July 31, 2020 DENIAL LETTER, YOU, Mr. Liu wrote, "Attached is a copy of the photo media sheet with the photographs obtained during our virtual Claims Xperience inspection which took place on May 5, 2020. The information provided by John Titouah was provided verbally and not in a written form. The information contained in our claim file notes are not considered claim-related documents, as defined by Insurance Code Section 10082.3 and will not be provided." Again, MR. LIU, kindly clear the conflicting contrary position. 3. Please write a clear denial letter on my claim on vandalism which coverage I discovered just only on November 4, 2020 when you belatedly furnished me with a copy of the policy which I requested far beyond on what is required by the regulation. 4. Your plumber informant is not authorized to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020. Your contention that huge excavation to search for pipe break on May 5, 2020 is not vandalism is out of order and had no legs to stand on. Your alibi that Titouah did a huge excavation to search for leak is a gross misrepresentation because he had already done the search for the pipe break some four days ago in his leak detection procedure and based on the heat signatures he had taken according to Titouah, assuming without agreeing, the pipe break is located some twelve (12) inches under the foundation. Likewise according to Titouah First American will not allow excavating deeper than ten (10) inches. Since he confirmed that the pipe break is some twelve (12) inches under the foundation and First American does not allow him to dig that depth. Therefore, he should not have come on May 5, 2020 anymore to excavate. The fact is though he is not authorized to do excessive excavation he still did it to satisfy your plan to make that huge excavation to produce a video footage of a huge excavation with a rigged no leak scenario for your benefit, to deny our secondary claim for damages. 5. With regard to the depth of the excavation made by Titouah, it is from four (4) to six (6) inches only. If you would want to dispute it, then please come again to the site and bring with you a ruler. I have preserved the excavation for farther investigation for you. If you refused to come then this dispute on depth measurement shall be resolved according to measurements we have taken invalidating the report of Titouah of eight (8) or nine (9) or ten (10) inches. SINCE THIS HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO MR. GUENIOT SINCE NOVEMBER 2020 AND UNTIL NOW, FOUR MONTHS LAPSED AND MR. GUENIOT AND YOU FAILED TO COME. HENCE, THE FOUR TO SIX INCHES DEPTH OF THE EXCAVATION CONSEQUENTLY SHALL PREVAIL. 6. Mr. Liu, I want to reiterate my CONTINUING OBJECTION to this paragraph 4 of of response by Mr. Gueniot, "Your email contains 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. " Why? Because this paragraph had already been rendered debunked on Wednesday November 13, 2020 where I have proven through substantial evidence that when he feel that he have a valid argument to contradict my contentions he responds in comprehensive details but when he do not have any, just remain silent and seek refuge on this paragraph 4. Next is the email evidence dated November 13, 2020.
7. MR. LIU, I am equally objecting to paragraph 3 of response by Mr. Gueniot: "This claim file remains closed. Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged. All conditions previously quoted still apply." Why? Because there is a pending criminal complaint against your informant, Titouah that has to be resolved first before he closes our claim file. Besides, I am still negotiating in good faith with him, whether he likes it or not, although he is showing manifestations of continuing bad faith. 8. MR. LIU, OBJECTION LIKEWISE IS RAISED AGAINST PARAGRAPH 2 OF RESPONSE BY MR. GUENIOT: "I communicated to you on September 9, 2020 that I am the Claim Team Manager responsible for the supervision of claim 55-06C6-44X submitted by Miriam Brual and Rosalina Buensuceso and will respond to communications received related to this claim. The contact information for other State Farm claim personnel will not be provided and all communications related to this claim will be forwarded to me for review and to provide a response if warranted." BECAUSE THOUGH MR. GUENIOT IS THE CLAIM TEAM MANAGER, HE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE OF DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THOSE DENIAL LETTERS: FIRST, HE HAD NO PROOF THAT HE IS PRESENT WATCHING TOGETHER WITH YOU WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE LIVE VIDEO PRESENTATION AND STATEMENTS BY YOUR INFORMANT, TITOUAH. SECOND, HE HAD NO PROOF WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THE SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS OR INTERVIEWS WITH THE PLUMBER INFORMANT TITOUAH HE WAS PRESENT TO ATTEST TO THOSE FACTS RELATED TO IT. THIRD, HE HAD NO PROOF THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE ACTUAL DEPTH MEASUREMENT OF THE EXCAVATION MADE BY TITOUAH BY PHYSICAL INVESTIGATION, THOUGH INVITED A COUPLE OF TIMES. FOURTH, WHEN I STARTED MY CLAIM ON VANDALISM IN NOVEMBER 2020, MR. GUENIOT IS THE PERSON IN CHARGE BUT HE NEVER WRITE A CONCISE DENIAL LETTER ABOUT IT. 9. MR. LIU, OBJECTION IS ALSO BEING RAISED TO SO MUCH CONFUSION CREATED BY MR. GUENIOT ON PARAGRAPH 7, WHERE HE MOVED THE "ONE YEAR SUIT AGAINST US" TO MAY 20, 2021, FROM JUNE12, 2020 AS HE WROTE ON MARCH 11, 2021 EMAIL AND SO MANY OTHER DATES FROM OTHER EMAIL RESPONSES. 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,
The email below has been received. I am also responding to your March 12, 2021 email to Claim Specialist Gordon Liu that states in part “REQUEST FOR THE NAME, POSITION AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WRITE TO CONCERNING OUR CLAIM PROCESSES BEING DERAILED BY MR. GUENIOT”, and your March 13, 2021 email titled “MOMENTS FOR RETROSPECTION 1”.
I communicated to you on September 9, 2020 that I am the Claim Team Manager responsible for the supervision of claim 55-06C6-44X submitted by Miriam Brual and Rosalina Buensuceso and will respond to communications received related to this claim. The contact information for other State Farm claim personnel will not be provided and all communications related to this claim will be forwarded to me for review and to provide a response if warranted.
This claim file remains closed. There are no negotiations. Our position as communicated in our letters and responsive emails are unchanged. 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.
Your emails are threatening and we will not respond to any future communication from you with respect to this claim.
We are required by California Insurance Regulations, Section 2695.7(b)(3), to advise you that if you believe this claim, or any part of this claim, has been wrongfully denied or rejected, you may have the matter reviewed by the California Department of Insurance, Claim Service Bureau, 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013, telephone 800 927 4357.
The one year “Suit Against Us” time period referred to in the May 6, 2020 letter includes the time period from the date of loss (April 26, 2020) to the date the claim was reported to State Farm (April 29, 2020). The one year time period was tolled during our investigation of this claim (April 29, 2020) to the date the claim was initially denied (May 6, 2020). The one year time period was tolled upon receipt of Antonio Buensuceso Jr.’s email dated May 29, 2020 for additional investigation until the date the denial of the claim was confirm in our June 12, 2020 letter. That one year time period continues to run as of the date of our June 12, 2020 letter. It is State Farm’s position that the one year time period referenced above will expire on May 20, 2021.
Please do not communicate with us further with respect to this claim as we will not respond.
Sincerely,
Louis
Louis E Gueniot III Claim Team Manager |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
