The RICO process noted in, The lawsuit alleges that field adjusters under oath stated that Florida-based insurers ordered that reports be changed to reduce or deny claims – Did insurance companies do this to deceive Florida lawmakers?  changed. 2 to include accusations from recent deposits. part of their adaptation. The lawsuit allegations regarding the deposit showed:
[O] on January 18, 2022, a field adjuster named Theodore Fiocati was dismissed in a case involving UPC and FKS. . . . Mr Fiocati testified that he was in a telephone conversation in 2020 with representatives of FKS and UPC and other field adjusters for FKS, which covered the land covered by the above FKS text. … He was told to avoid determining the cause of a loss and instead forward to the desktop adjuster for further handling. . . . Mr Fiocati confirmed that he had followed the instructions. . . . The source of the discomfort when depositing was clear. The desktop adjuster made observations that are not supported by Mr. Fiocatis' own report. . . . Fiocati himself only stated that he could not find damage to the roof in question because he had been instructed to do so. . . Yes, Mr. Fiocati confirmed that he could not rule out that wind damaged the roof in question. . . . Mr. Fiocati confirmed that the ethical guidelines and procedures in such a circumstance would require him to make a decision in favor of the insured (as opposed to what ultimately happened.). . . Had he been allowed to act as a field adjuster absent instruction from FKS and UPC, he would have written an estimate of the extent of the damages; UPC's and FKS's final discovery was something he did not agree with. . . . The crucial thing was that Mr. Fiocati testified that he alone handled the "probably say over 100" claim according to the instructions above. . . Furthermore, other adjusters received the same instructions as he received. . . . In fact, the instructions were to avoid finding a cause for the damage, and instead refer the matter to the desk adjuster for determination, not only for "late reported claims", but for claims reported in a timely manner but resumed.
Fastighetsförsäkring. Adjusters have two primary functions when adjusting a loss. First, examine the facts about coverage. Second, evaluate valuation facts regarding the size of the loss. If true, the insurer instructed the adjusters to ignore the facts as to whether wind damage existed and prevented them from writing amounts for that damage.
Another adjuster's most recent deposit was also noted in the amended complaint:
[O] January 20, 2022, the field adjuster Lari Piscitelli was dismissed due to another claim handled by UPC. . . . Mr. Piscitelli worked at the time for Mid-American Claims. He testified that he alone believed that he handled approximately 150-200 claims for UPC through Mid-American Claims. . . . Just like with Mr. Fiocati through FKS, participated Mr. Piscitelli in a meeting with UPC through Mid-American Claims where he, and all other field adjusters with Mid-American Claims who handled any UPC claims, were instructed on how not to document claims for UPC. (& # 39; The Mid-American Online Meeting. & # 39;) At that meeting and thereafter, Mr. Piscitelli and other adjusters to actually avoid doing their job:
We had a meeting at night and everyone was at the meeting and it was discussed orally. I think some people from UPC were there, but I can not tell you exactly who was in the meeting. It was mostly adjusters, and it was at night and they basically said they would deny too late reporting and not write the word damage, say the word damage.
Mr. Piscitelli stated that he was instructed by the UPC to "
If these allegations are true, it seems to be a scheme for the UPC to deny almost all later reported allegations under the pretext that the damage was either not caused by wind or that the insurer would be damaged because its adjuster could not make a decision.I wrote about this tactic in Has your insurance company denied your claim due to failure to do not give a quick message?
Do not take a denial of your claim or a claim of late registration as a gospel. are they starting to look and act like the three monkeys who do not see, hear or speak anything while conducting their investigation? They will
This trial seems to prove that what I am warning about is taking place on a large scale. If true, many would think that our Florida insurance regulators should conduct a major investigation into this insurer because hundreds of policyholders were harmed by this behavior, which is now supported by sworn testimonies and actual text messages showing the system.
keep readers of this blog up to date on other reports in this federal case and if we hear anything about regulators following up on their public interest obligations.
Thoughts for the Day  even if it leads to the president. I am innocent. You must think I'm innocent. If you do not, take my job.
Richard M. Nixon
1 SFR Services v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. No. 8: 22-cv-00109 [Amended Complaint] (M.D. Fla.).