Complaint Review: Northland Insurance Company Traveler's Insurance Company (Owners of Northland) Michael P. Meuwissen National Director Transportation Claims Northland Insurance Company - St. Paul Minnesota

Below is a copy of a letter I wrote refuting Northland Insurance as to their reasons for denyuing my valid claims against their insured. Northland only responded with an attorney and implied threats which if coupled with court action would only work to my advantage since it would open a line of discovery not yet available because I have not yet filed legal action which I will shortly do because we are approaching the end, in September, of the Statute of Limitations.

Obviously I am interested in conversing with anybody who has had similar difficulties with Northland or Travelers Insurance who are the owners of Northland. My phone number is 404-892-1238, email [email protected]


Cover Sheet
In re: Claim Number TN 517930-1

To

Michael P. Meuwissen
National Director
Transportation Claims

Northland Insurance Company
385 Washington Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 555102-1309

From
Jack J
Claimant:

Atlanta, Georgia 30306

In Care of:
Scott W. McMickle
McMickle, Kurey & Branch, LLP
178 S. Main Street
Suite 225
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009

Jack J

3/22/2011

 
Michael P. Meuwissen

National Director
Transportation Claims

Northland Insurance Company
385 Washington Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1309

January 27, 2012

 
In re: Claim Number
TN517930-1

Hoker Trucking, LLC

Dear Mr. Meuwissen,

This is a response to your letter of January 5, 2011 which I think it appropriate be prefaced as follows
so that you and anybody else that reads this material and contest of your erroneous decision denying my claim be fully informed as to the history preceding my contest of that decision. I will then take up your bullet points which contrary to your belief do not support your denial of my claim, and as I am told the bible says, the last of your bullet points, i.e. ? 8, and the most egregious in terms of violation of insurance regulations and prior practice, let alone honesty and decency, shall be first.

Preamble: Jack J complaint
against Northland Insurance Company:

The subject of this complaint is the failure of Northland Insurance Company to timely and properly
accept or deny my claims against Hoker Trucking (They first denied my claim in writing only recently, more than four years later) and as well the fact that they denied the claim at all given the overwhelming evidence that supports with
at least reasonable certainty or reasonable clarity the conclusion that Northlands insured was at fault.

At the time of the circumstances described in the accompanying materials directly addressing Northland Insurance Company and their insured Hoker Trucking LLC of Dixon, Iowa, I worked as a contractor for Bennet Motor Express driving and thus delivering, to all parts of the United States, various heavy, commercial vehicles, most of which
were school buses. In order to do that I had and continue to possess a B Commercial Drivers License which allows the holder to drive any straight body vehicle.

Because of my injuries sustained in the collision subject of this complaint, on I-35 at its intersection with I-90 in Minnesota, at 2:00 A.M., September 22, 2006, I am no longer able to obtain the medical certificate required to validate that license for driving commercial vehicles.

In fact I had two days before the collision which is the subject matter of this complaint, delivered a
school bus in Rugby, N. Dakota, towing (As was customary) the Acura Integra over which the described insurance dispute unfolded. Having delivered the bus (Unhooking my car and unplugging from the bus the electrical connections that powered and illuminated the towing lights that were completely independent of the cars electrical and lighting system and stowing both the tow lighting and the tow bar and requisite hardware in the Acuras hatchback)
on the morning of September 20, 2006, I drove the Acura South to Fargo where after dinner I engaged a room and went to sleep.

Arising late the next morning, the 21st, I had breakfast at a coffee shop that also provided wireless connections for my lap top computer. Using those connections to access the company jobs web site and locating a vehicle at a company agency in Forrest City, Iowa, I used my cell phone to secure engagement to drive that vehicle, again towing my little car, to its destination on the coast of North Carolina.

Because of the collision that is the subject of this complaint I never got there. Instead I ended up in
a hospital in Albert Lea, Minnesota, with bilateral breakage of most of my ribs and after ten days in hospital spent almost another month in a motel under doctors orders not to travel before I was driven by an Atlanta friend back to my home in Atlanta.

Bullet Points ? the last first

In your letter of  January 5, 2011, (Attached) in which for the first time in the better than four years since the collision in question on September 22, 2006, at about 2:00 a.m., Northland Insurance Company explicitly denies my claim, despite reasonable certainty or clarity as to its viability, you make a number of bullet pointed assertions as to the facts of the matter ostensibly explaining why you are denying my claim.

Last but first as promised is your completely false and erroneous assertion in bullet point 8.                  

? Mr. McCoys account of this collision is supported by the State Patrol and Sherriffs [sic] reports.

It is strange to read such an outright and dishonest assertion when in fact the State Patrol and Sheriffs Officers clearly state over and over that your insured, Allan McCoy, the driver of the Hoker Trucking tractor-trailer, repeatedly asserted he was in the left lane and he thought the collision took place in the left lane but all the material evidence the Deputy and Trooper offer in written statements and the Troopers drawing show the hard material fact I was rear-ended in the right lane, an exit/entrance lane to Interstate 90.

The outright dishonesty of that statement, that McCoys statement that he hit me in the left lane and that
said assertion is supported by the Officers, its patent falsity alone, shows the policy and practice of Northland in enriching itself by denying the lawful rights of those with a valid third party claim against a Northland insured and hence Northland.

If you look at the report and diagram filed by Trooper Barta (Attached) and by Deputy Sheriff Ryan Shea (Attached)
it is clear that Mr. McCoy thought the collision occurred in the leftmost high speed lane  of Interstate 35.

The Trooper reports Veh 2 was in the left lane going about 65 mph.  Obviously the Trooper is reciting what he was told by Mr. McCoy. Driver 2, according to the Trooper, Said he didnt see anything until the last second when he just saw a
blur.

That last secondblur is a lot less than he alleged to Deputy Shea where he in fact asserts he saw me
and falsely states my lights were off but we will let that pass for a moment.

Despite Mr. McCoys assertion he was in the left lane the fact that he wasnt is demonstrated by Trooper Bartas diagram showing the point of impact just inside the rightmost short entrance/exit lane to and from I-90 at a point 270 feet (According to Deputy Shea) south of where my car came to rest.

In Trooper Bartas report we should also carefully note that although he inexplicably states Veh 1
unknown what lane, he actually identifies vehicle ones lane (My lane) as the rightmost lane because that is where he places the point of impact. It should be obvious that the point of impact necessarily occurs in the lane traveled.

Deputy Ryan Shea in his report further underlines the discrepancy between your assertion in bullet
point eight and the material facts on the ground.

He says I then spoke with the driver of the semi, i.e., your Mr. McCoy. I asked him how the accident
happened. The driver of the semi told me that he was Northbound on I-35 in the left lane. He said all of a
sudden there was a vehicle in front of him without any lights. He said he tried to move left to avoid the accident but did not have time. He said he could not see the vehicle that he collided with until he was about to hit it. He said the
other vehicle was maybe only traveling 20 mph if it was even moving.

Deputy Shea also reports an ostensible conversation Mr. McCoy allegedly had with me which I dont remember
if indeed it ever took place. That notwithstanding, he goes on again quoting Mr. McCoy, He said he thought the
accident took place in the left lane.

As to McCoy saying he would have moved left but did not have time it appears nobody asked McCoy the
simple question how could he move left since he was already, according to his account, in the leftmost lane and moving left would have overturned his rig in the median.

Nonetheless, McCoys statement that he would have moved left completely illustrates McCoys confusion even minutes after the collision.

But then the Deputy, good collision investigator he obviously is, says I walked back on the interstate to see if I could find the spot of impact.  I found where glass was shattered in the right lane about 270
feet south of the resting place of the Acura. I also saw skid marks from the semi in the right lane. They began about
150 feet south of the Acura and continued past the Acura.

I find inexplicable your assertion that Mr. McCoys account of this collision is supported by the State Patrol and Sherriffs reports, since in fact they are diametrical opposites.

Both accounts, both Trooper Bartas and Deputy Sheas, clearly assert that McCoy said he was in the leftmost lane at 65mph. Deputy Shea states that McCoy further asserted ..he thought the accident took place in the left
lane.

All the material evidence definitively show the collision took place in the rightmost entrance/exit lane inclusive not only of the point of impact but also of skid marks that strongly suggest that for whatever reason McCoy left the high speed lane, drifted right into the entrance/exit lane and slowed to about 40mph, as his foot relaxes on the accelerator, where I must have been moving at about 35mph where signs (On the engineer drawings attached) call for exit speeds of 30mph (Thinking that might be my exit) and making contact with me, pushing me some distance before applying his brakes 120 feet after impact (Which at 40mph translates into about 1 & 1/3rd seconds or 3 times normal average reaction time),
because that is what the skid marks show, eventually spinning me off to his right 270 feet after impact and passing me still leaving skid marks eventually coming to a stop, the stop point not recorded.

There are lots of possibilities in that scenario supported by the material evidence.
The one narrative that is not possible is that what the Deputy and Trooper report is in consonance with Mr. McCoys account because their account of the material facts is directly the opposite of McCoys hence not at all in support of his.

Mr. McCoy repeatedly asserts to the Trooper and Deputy that he was in the leftmost lane, that ..he thought the accident took place in the left lane. All the evidence suggests that Mr. McCoy was very confused and at best could not adequately explain the cause of the collision. He never explains a most crucial fact, i.e., how is it that driving in the leftmost high
speed lane he leaves that lane and arrives in the entrance/exit lane, the rightmost lane, where he runs into my rear seriously injuring me and putting me in the hospital with bilateral fractures of my ribs.

If nothing else the facts suggest that Mr. Hoker was in violation of driving laws as to keeping his lane.
Unknown is had he, as required, had adequate rest before picking that rig up sometime after mid-night, had he refrained from alcohol and/or drugs, was he medically qualified to be driving?

I cannot believe that the National Director for Transportation Claims for Northland Insurance would fail to understand the aforesaid fact set in this third party beneficiary claim against Hoker Trucking and their insurer Northland, nor that understanding the facts, seek  to deny a claim justly brought and supported by hard material evidence.

Before the rest of the bullet points the condition of the interstate

But, before I get into the rest of your points I want to remind you and explain to everybody else as may
read this letter a fact that you completely ignore in your denial letter, that the collision in question, your insureds massive tractor-trailer against my tiny little Acura Integra, took place on a brilliantly illuminated
section of Interstate 35 (That immediate cloverleaf section illuminated by towering high intensity lamps totaling 80 kilowatts so as to give the appearance of daylight) at the point where it intersects with Interstate 90 on pavement, as the Minnesota Highway Patrol accident report shows, that was dry.

Those 80 one thousand watt metal halide lamps, as illustrated by Minnesota highway engineering drawings,
simply puts the lie to your insured driver when he falsely claims he hit me in the left lane because my lights were off and he did not see me. Measurements made on the engineers drawings show that when he hit me in the right lane as
the Deputy and Trooper assert based on point of impact evidence, show that we were almost directly under a lamp tower bearing 8 kilowatts of illumination with two or three similar towers nearby.

Even if my lights had been off, and they were not, those lamps made the roadway look like daylight. Were
he not asleep or otherwise unconscious, as his account suggests, he should have seen me.

Now, for the record, let us get to the rest of your bullet points before returning to bullet point eight as
an encore and reminder as to your dishonesty.

? Your claim arose from a motor vehicle collision that occurred September 22, 2006 between a vehicle you
were operating and one operated by Mr. Allan McCoy for Hoker Trucking, LLC.

? The collision occurred around 2:30 am on Interstate 35 northbound at or near its junction with
Interstate 90 in Freeborn County, Minnesota. 

Your bullet points 1 and 2 as to the truck belonging to Hoker Trucking and driven by Allan McCoy as well
as location are correct.

The one point I want to make here in regard to those two points, because you ignore it everywhere else
in your letter is that, as I have said above, any and all other assertions that you make must be considered in light of the actual highway conditions at the point and time of the collision, those considerations being that the highway
was brilliantly illuminated and that it was dry, i.e., it was not raining as apparently Northland asserted falsely (It was inclement weather) to a subrogation arbitrator contradicting Trooper Bartas report which says it was dry.

? We received notice of and began investigating this claim September 22, 2006.

? We obtained reports completed by the Minnesota Highway Patrol and the Freeborn County Sherriffs Office.

I have no dispute with your
points 3 and 4 as to when you got notice and the reports you received from the
Minnesota Highway Patrol and the Freeborn County Sheriffs office. Nonetheless,
based on those same reports I must emphatically say that our conclusions are
directly opposite as to who was at fault in that incident.

It should be noted that although you started your investigation the same day as the collision you have in
violation of insurance regulations delayed four years before denying my claim in writing as required.

? The headlight switch to your vehicle was found in the off position and no lights were illuminated
when Freeborn County Deputy Merkouris, the first responder, arrived at the scene. (Freeborn County Sherriff Office report FCSO200600023649 Record 1. Page
1.)

Those reports, as stated in bullet point 5 correctly state that when the Deputy arrived on the scene my lights were off.

In regard to that I would point out that when Trooper Barta asked me if my lights were on before the
collision I answered in the affirmative. When he told me that the lights had been found off and turned on by the Deputies when they arrived I explained to him that after the collision I turned them off.

Although I here, after all these years, use the word collision  at that point in time I was in fact not aware there had been a collision.

My guess, based on the material evidence, is that although semis under power make a lot of noise, said
evidence suggests that your insured, had himself gone to sleep or otherwise lost consciousness and drifting out of his right lane relaxed his foot on the accelerator, and so coasting had also slowed and was almost silent when he ran
into my rear end.

Nonetheless, having just experienced a tremendous, incapacitating, wave of pain, the result of the severe injuries to my ribs or that on impact I had bitten part way through my tongue (All of which the medical reports will sustain), but coupled with my inability to move my car and thus aware that something serious had happened, perhaps I had run over something in the road, a concrete block, or similar hazard or obstruction, but now aware because of the extreme pain that I was losing consciousness and thus any ability to help myself, to get out of my car, prudence said turn off the ignition, turn off the lights; if I could have I would have disconnected the battery in order to prevent electrical shorts and
hence fire.

I do not remember if I explained to Trooper Barta when still in the car and having regained consciousness, that with sixty years of experience as a driver, and having witnessed collisions where drivers and passengers were trapped in cars so badly wrecked they could not get out and where the cars caught fire, in regard to my safety because I did not know what had happened, and just before I blacked out, I had turned off both my ignition and my lights fearing electrical shorts and
consequent fire.

A look at the pictures of my cars rear end show wires tangled in torn metal. Although no fire ensued and
although I had no idea what had happened my precautions as to my safety were obviously well founded.

Nonetheless, your focus on that coupled with your complete failure to acknowledge anywhere in general the
brightly illuminated highway, merely testify to your inherent dishonesty in denying my claim because ..the conclusion that the lights on your vehicle were not illuminated is reasonable based on the information we have gathered. I
support our position that your actions were the proximate cause of this collision completely ignores the fact that
the point of impact was almost directly (As can be ascertained by matching Deputy Sheas distance estimates to the roadway engineering drawings) under the illumination of 8 kilowatts of illumination on a pole almost alongside. (See the attached  state engineers print)

So this bullet point is just a setup to make your denial look legitimate whilst overlooking the fact that even if my lights had been off before the collision when in fact they had not been, given the brightly illuminated highway this setup just ignores the fact of the inescapable conclusion that were Mr. McCoy conscious and/or awake and not have inexplicably left his lane he would not have encountered me and should have seen me.

I cannot emphasize too much that the brightly illuminated highway, the towering lamp posts, each bearing either 6,000 or 8,000 watts of metal halide illuminators, (According to highway engineers drawings), including the one almost opposite, and looking down on the point of impact, make all your going on about my lights being off before impact
meaningless and beside the point.

Were he awake, were he paying attention to his job driving that tractor-trailer, he would not have left his lane on the left side of the highway to hit me on the right side of the highway. Because of that illumination you cannot shift responsibility for what I hours later and laying in a hospital bed learned was not a cinder block in the road, not a hole in the
road, but in fact a rear-ending by your insured Hoker Trucking driver.

? You did not recall anything when Deputy Merkouris questioned you at the scene. (Freeborn County
Sherriff Office report FCSO200600023649 Record 2. Page 1.)

As to point 6 I dont in fact remember conversation with anybody but Trooper Barta, when I acknowledged
to him that I had turned the lights and ignition off after the collision (I actually did not at that point know the cause of the incident or in fact that there had been a collision) just as the EMS crew were removing me from the car.
I only learned that I had been rear-ended by a tractor-trailer when Trooper Barta told me so late that afternoon when he visited me in the hospital.

? You told Trooper Barta that you were traveling southbound and exiting for Mason City, Iowa when the collision occurred. (State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety case 06103257.)

As to bullet point 7 I did indeed tell Trooper Barta that I was traveling Southbound although I dont think he ever understood that I was speaking of my intensions, my purpose, rather than the fact that, as I learned from him in the hospital, I had mistakenly, after visiting the Albert Lea Walmart to buy motor oil and a jacket, re-entered the interstate Northbound onto a Northbound lane instead of Southbound on my way to Forrest City, Iowa, as was my intention.

? Mr. McCoys  account of this collision is supported by the State Patrol and Sherriffs reports.

And so we return to where we started, your last and 8th bullet point and our above objection which we now reiterate.

Your 8th and last bullet point that Mr. McCoys account of this collision is supported by the State Patrol and Sherriffs [sic] reports is totally false and completely disregards the fact that what Mr. McCoy told both Trooper Barta and the County Sheriffs is completely at odds with the material facts and evidence on the ground as proffered in the Officers reports and subjected to my thorough analysis above.

McCoy repeatedly asserts he was in the left lane, the accident, he says, occurred in the left lane, but
everything the Officers report, i.e., material evidence of point of impact and skid marks, place the collision in the right entrance/exit lane to Interstate 90.

Therefore I would have to assert that your ..conclusion that the lights on your vehicle were not illuminated
is reasonable based on the information we have gathered, fails to address the issue of their being on before the collision and not on after the collision having been turned off, as I honestly stated, by myself after what I then did
not know was a collision fearing the possibility of fire from electrical shorts, because your intention, in keeping with the apparent custom and practice of your employer, is to deny my claim as pattern and practice directed
at further enriching Northland despite the unjust means employed, i.e., denying claims despite substantial evidence justifying them.

Further your conclusion seems to ignore, perhaps with purpose, that although my lights were on before
what I now know was a collision, in reality because of the highly illuminated highway, said illumination giving that highway the appearance of daylight, a fact you should know or should have gleaned from Mr. McCoy, and that contrary
to your companies statements that the weather was inclement or it was pouring rain, as has been stated to me, the fact is that even if my lights were off before the collision (Again they were off only after what I later learned was a
collision with your insured), your insureds driver, Mr. McCoy, should have seen me in the entrance/exit lane because that intersection is never dark given the lighting system installed by the State in the interest of safety; in the interest of preventing the sort of collision that did occur even if someone ventured there with their lights off.

Could it possibly be that Northlands policy and practice is one of bad faith practices seeking to deny
claims in order to turn the claims department into a profit center?

Could it be that such policies and practices endanger the very carefully constructed laws requiring
all motor vehicles, let alone the behemoths that holders of Commercial Drivers Licenses like Mr. McCoy and I drive, (I was in fact on my way in the tiny car I tow on such jobs to pick up another such vehicle for delivery in N. Carolina) thus
turning motor vehicles large and small into the public menace the insurance laws were meant to allay.

Unfortunately research suggests your denial of my claim is deliberate (Although unfounded) insofar as
Northland has previously been fined in Oregon in an instance almost exactly like this one.  (See the attached)

Northland actually sued a fellow, for trademark infringement, whose policy insuring his boat they
disregarded when he took to the internet to denounce them, Northland v. Blaylock, the Federal Court in a very important First Amendment case denied the injunction Northland sought asserting use of Northlands trademark to denounce
Northland was not trade mark infringement.  (See the attached)

Or the violations asserted in this California investigation.

PUBLIC REPORT OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE CLAIMS PRACTICES OF THE NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY NAIC #
24015 CDI # 1643-6 (http://www20.insurance.ca.gov/pdf/REPORT/6186.PDF)

Without taking up any more space in this letter it is clear there are numerous cases of the same sort as
to unwarranted claims denials by Northland when good cause for a claim in fact existed.

I cannot more strongly suggest that you, on Northlands behalf, recognize my valid third party claim
against your insured and negotiate a settlement of my claims in order to avoid any more damage than has already been done.


Sincerely,

Jack J

Cc:

Georgia Insurance
Commissioner

Iowa Insurance regulator

Minnesota Insurance
regulator

FDOT