Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec
Posted by Jack on 3/31/04
I don't work for for Farmers and am no longer in the busines
so I could give a s*#t about Farmers. In my opinion Farmers
won this case...giving away what they did in the Ballard case
is pocket change for this company and and realistically only a
fraction of all the fraudulent mold claims they paid out. In
my opinion both parties are at fault... incompetence vs. money
train... Good for you maintaining your home...you would be
suprised how many Americans do not and then blame someone else
for their problems. It a shame there isn't a bad faith clause
in the policy for a homeowner not taking care of their home. I
wish you could have been in my shoes when I handled claims in
the houston area a couple of years ago in the height of this
hysteria. Contractors, public adjusters, remediators and just
plain con-men new exactly how to play the game.
On 3/30/04, johncodie wrote:
> I can see your still sore about losing the Ballard Case!
> What was the response from Farmers, We are proud that we
> not found guilty of fraud, and we were only found guilty of
> bad faith in this claim on mold remediation. Now that you
> have found this compelling evidence that the Ballard home
> just fine all along, contrary to the CDC and other federal
> health publications, you might want sue Ms Ballard for
> Fraud. Farmers did indicate that she committed fraud and
> caused her own damages making her lose her world as she knew
> it. Your case does not stand up in facts as I learned from
> Ms Ballard and got every bit of evidence I could even
> including your "Mold Busting Experts from Corpus Christie".
> I was up last night fixing a leak under the dishwasher to
> preclude a problem from future mold. If I listen to you
> Jack, I could have put it off because you say mold is just
> irritant. And did we mention that the City Inspectors used
> the International Building Codes to Condemn the house the
> Expert Mold Busters from Texas Claimed to just need patching
> and painting in public, but in private was a
> problem. Oh this modern world of speech identification is a
> marvel. Did I mention the remediation company that was
> to use the remediation product, "cow utter sanitizer" mixed
> with paint to remediate the mold that was otherwise not a
> problem? Did I mention the defense experts, HVAC Engineer,
> Photomart Manager, Candel Stick maker? I don't know why you
> pay these guys $165 an hour when the plantiffs are bringing
> in a member of the American Board of Toxicology from the
> EPA, and Former Military special forces toxin experts. They
> are worth at least twice what the defense is paying. If you
> think you have the "mold issue" and the courts by the tail,
> just wait for the next major hurricane with flooding. Your
> casualty claims adjusters will do the same poor job of
> showing up, and not be able to handel the number of claims.
> They will just say it will dry out, or don't worry it was
> flood waters, so it is clean water. Or they probably have
> heard that you have all the answers on mold not being a
> problem so they can again take their time and ingnore the
> guidelines for a time line.
> When an officer of the law stops an individual for an
> inspection of the person's credentials he assumes some of
> liability for the safety of the individual. When an
> insurance company comes to person's home to inspect a claim
> and is too busy and delay's the process of removal or clean-
> up, they become liable for spoliation. Forget about "mold"
> for now, The insurance company is either a part of the
> solution, or a part of the problem. There is no in-
> You may have yourself convienced, and you may have some
> policy maker's convienced; but what you say does not
> represent the truth, and will not hold water in a court of
> law. When your representatives start taking steps to
> minimize what they see in order to meet a predetermined
> they have in mind, it is Bad Faith in the worst form. When
> they take actions to hide the turth, or influence
> to not properly investigate, and present false reports under
> sworn testimony they are committing fraud. Can you think of
> any reason a persons claim file would be considered
> as "priviledged"? Can you think of any reason a person's
> home toxicology report would be considered
> Can you think of any reason an insurance company would leave
> a million dollars in an account after the policy had been
> sold after three years???? Give you a hint, it is
> but it comes close. All you have to do Jack is cite all
> these wonderful published studies you claim to have full
> knowledge about and it all goes away. Otherwise we are
> to assume your full of it "it is not mold".
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspective, 3/29/04, by Jack.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 3/30/04, by johncodie.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 3/30/04, by Greg Weatherman.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 3/30/04, by dd.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 3/31/04, by Jack.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 4/01/04, by johncodie.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 4/06/04, by dd.
- Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec, 4/06/04, by Mary.