• Report: #1076053

Complaint Review: ANPAC Insurance Agency

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, August 15, 2013
  • Updated: Thu, August 15, 2013

  • Reported By: Wayne The Pain — Yakima Washington
ANPAC Insurance Agency
1 Moody Plaza Galveston, Texas USA

ANPAC Insurance Agency , ANGIC Insurance William L. Moody Fraud, Breach of Contract, Racism, Galveston  Texas

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

 Wayne R. E. Rudder

P.O. Box 2162

Yakima, WA 98901

718 733 4662

509 424 3037

aampubjusccsc@gmx.us

 

 

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INAND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI


Wayne R. E. Rudder Plaintiffs

V

DSHS

ANPAC Insurance Company.

Does, 1 through 10

Case:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: BAD FAITH, FRAUD, THEFT BY DECEPTION, DISCRIMINATION, BREACH OF CONTRACT For:  95,000.  Jury Trial Demanded

 

 

 

This is a complaint for damages against ANPAC Insurance Company.   Plaintiffs state for cause of action as follows:

  1.  Plaintiff Wayne Rudder ("Rudder") is a competent adult residing in Yakima County

 Defendant ANPAC Insurance Company is a heartless corporation, a den of thieves and a gang of racketeers doing substantial business and holding itself out as an insurance company in Yakima County, and licensed to do business in the State of Washington and elsewhere.

 The true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10 are unknown to Plaintiffs, except for these defendants aided and abetted Farmers in the wrongful acts and omissions set forth herein. Plaintiffs shall seek leave to amend this complaint to allege additional information and the identities of Does 1 through ten when these become known.

 At all times relevant herein, each Defendant was the agent and employee of every other defendant and performed acts and omissions complained of herein in the course and scope of such agency and employment.

 At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff resided in a home he owns under a complicated set of unrelated facts where the home is titled to Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno , a home and real property known as 231 Windy Ridge Lane in Moxee, Washington, County of Yakima.

 Relying, to their detriment, upon widely publicized but generally false representations by Defendant ANPAC to be "fast, fair and friendly", Plaintiffs purchased a policy of insurance from ANPAC which, among other things, promised to indemnify Plaintiff in the event their property in Moxee was burglarized.

  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff made all payments due under the policy, no matter how extortionate those payments may have been, and no matter how fraudulent the underlying promises of Defendant has been.

 Plaintiff did at all times reside at their property in Moxee at the residence purportedly insured by the Defendant.

 On the date of July of 2011 Plaintiff hired John Hale to complete repairs to damage caused by a fire to the home in January of the same year.  Hale was the fourth contractor to work on the home as the previous contractors had been unsatisfactory.  Hale demanded 900 to complete the work. However, when the Plaintiff had paid 1,900 to Hale in addition to some 800 in food, beer, cigarettes and other items, Hale then demanded more money from the Plaintiff in the form of A. 350  to pay for a purported ticket, and 450 to pay for a purported towing of a motor vehicle owned by Hale. Plaintiff balked at paying any more money until all the repairs were completed. This caused Hale to then engage in a two week sick out and then to stop work altogether on the premises. The relationship between Hale and Plaintiff grew caustic and uncommunicative. Plaintiff, because he feared that his long office hours would enable Hale to wreak vengeance on the property, spoke to Dan Williams, an agent for ANPAC who was his neighbor at his office location. Dan invited the Plaintiff to file for insurance and Plaintiff did purchase insurance to indemnify any loses at the home.

 On or about October 12, 2011 the Plaintiff returned home to find that a brand new receiver purchased from Best Buy, still in the box, was taken by someone.  Plaintiff did not report that theft, but did foray into the stores to purchase a replacement.

 On the date of October 25, 2011 the Plaintiff arrived home to find that the window leading from the exterior spa had been broken and the entry allowed entry to the house through the bathroom window. The following items, nonexclusive, were taken, television, computers, computer items, CD players, and many other items were taken from the residence. On this occasion the Plaintiff did make a claim with ANPAC and did urge to ANPAC that his items were stolen. The Plaintiff, an Immigration Specialist in Yakima, did detail one of his four secretaries to make a claim to ANPAC. The secretary did make the claim and did inform ANPAC of the loss.  The Secretary utilized a general list of items that were in the house that were missing and included a counter top stove which had not actually been stolen but which had been in the back of the Plaintiff’s Expedition and later placed in the office of the Plaintiff for sale due to the fact that it utilized gas and the Plaintiff had no gas outlets and the Plaintiff had purchased a stove from Home Depot.

 A few weeks later the Plaintiff was again robbed and his work clothing taken, televisions, laptop and other items. These had been primarily the replacement items for the items that had been stolen. Plaintiff believed that both items had been done by John Hale who lived on a neighbor’s property with his family in a Fifth Wheel. On all occasions the Plaintiff reported the theft to the police and again proceeded to file a claim with ANPAC.

 Finally, a little while later Plaintiff’s entirety of belongings were taken, clothing, jewelry, the stereo, and many other items were removed from the house.

 Plaintiff filed another claim with ANPAC.

 Plaintiff learned that his office was also being targeted and he could not be in two places at once. His home is located outside of Moxee, about seven miles outside of Moxee and it would take the police some 20 minutes to get to the house which, within that time, the entire house could be moved. Since all items had been stolen and only the beds and the stoves remained in the house, the Plaintiff began to spend most time at his office where he could also sleep and cook and bathe.  To allow the office to be robbed the way his home was would be absolutely detrimental to the Plaintiff’s clients. The Plaintiff reported all the thefts to the Sheriff Department in Yakima.

 The Plaintiff had, at the time, some 580 clients for his immigration services and that had a higher priority rather than remaining at home to protect his meager belongings. 

 

  1. On or about the date of June 12, 2009 Plaintiffs Garcia and Moreno granted verbal Power of Attorney to Rudder and solidified the verbal Power of Attorney by assigning a written and certified Power of Attorney to Rudder in June of 2010. This Power of Attorney essentially transferred all interest in the house to the Plaintiff.

 This Power of Attorney, for valuable consideration, granted Rudder the exclusive right and authority to, in addition to other responsibilities,  submit claims regarding the 231 Windy Ridge Property, to file insurance claims and litigate insurance and other claims regarding the property, and to tend to Garcia and Moreno's interests in the United States extending such to include the power to act as attorney in fact in dealings with third parties in relation to the particulars of Garcia and Moreno.

 The Power of Attorney included the transfer of the furnished property to Rudder upon his determination.

 Previous to the incidents related to this suit, the home had been burglarized by persons unknown. 

 At the time of Garcia and Moreno's being taken into detention, and before their ultimate deportation, , federal immigration agents seized and confiscated certain items of personal property belonging to Garcia and Moreno. The Agents provided a receipt for this property to Garcia and Moreno.

   When Moreno and Garcia were taken into custody by the Immigration Agency, the house remained vacant with all of their personal property intact.

 About two weeks after their detention the house was burglarized by parties unknown. The police were called by neighbors on several occasions as persons were seen leaving the property with items belonging to the house.

  On or about May 12, 2009 the son of Francisco and Antonia and the daughter of Francisco and Antonia visited the house and had found the house to have been burglarized. Because they were undocumented aliens and due to the confinement of the mother and father no action was taken at that time. When Francisco and Antonia were sent to Mexico, it was without any sort of documentation which would allow them to make contact with Farmers Insurance and they did not know the depth of the loss.

  The house remained vacant from April 29, 2009 through June 10, 2010 when Plaintiff arrived at the house and found the house to be completely vacant with all personal belongings of Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia having been burglarized during that time.

   On or about July 4,, 2010 Mr. Rudder, upon locating the insurance information relevant to the Defendant, and consistent with his duties, contacted Farmers and made a claim in the name and person of Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno.  The value of the loss was about 119,980.  This is mentioned to provide the basis for finding that the house had long been targeted for burglaries and thefts due to its remote nature where it would take the police some 45 minutes to respond to any situation whatsoever.

  Plaintiff believed that the ANPAC Insurance Agency would be reputable in their dealings with him.  However, this was not so. The company balked at the claims and began to make extraordinary demands upon the Plaintiff. The Company unreasonably sought items such as specific receipts for the property lost and when the receipts were provided from Best Buy, Best Buy included a page of someone else’s account based upon the fact that the person had once had the Plaintiff’s telephone number when he moved to Yakima. The records at Best Buy are kept primarily by telephone numbers, it appears.

 Plaintiff provided a completed Proof of Loss to ANPAC where every page was certified and notarized. On one of the pages Plaintiff’s secretary listed a stove which had not been stolen and which was in the office of the Plaintiff since it had been damaged in transportation and needed to be taken to the Post Office.

 ANPAC began to engage in delay. For several months they did nothing at all to award the Plaintiff money for the damages done to his property when their policy stated clearly that they would do so. They assigned the claims to Eric Z. Cannon, a lawyer in Seattle, Washington.  The lawyer then began to make unreasonable demands of the Plaintiff  where many of the items sought were attainable by the counsel himself from public sources including the following: 

 In a follow up to your EUO, please provide the below information and/or documentation as it pertains to the 10/25/11 claim:

 1. Federal Tax returns or any other documents used for Federal returns between the dates of 2007-2011 for you individually (under all of the names and social security numbers you use) and your company Low Income Immigrations Assistance.

2. The full social security number for Vincent Daniel Hopper.

3. Any and all receipts you claim that you have detailing the purchase of all of the Macy's clothing items your are claiming on the expense claim sheet.

4. Cell phone records for October, November and December 2011.

5. The Youtube video that you believe might show some of the property claimed in this loss before the loss occurred.

6. The Power of Attorney documentation from Francisco Moreno and Antonia Marks which shows your authority to files claims on their behalf and also to be in the subject Windy Ridge home. Basically, I want to see any documentation which shows that you have ownership interest in the home.

7. Any documentation indicating that you are working with Bank of America in modifying the loan of the Windy Ridge address as well documents relating to the balance of said loan.

8. You mentioned that Balboa Insurance covers the Homeowners Insurance on the subject home. Please provide that policy and dates of coverage.

9. Any rental agreements you had in 2011 for anyone at the subject address.

10. Copies of your Bank account records (showing your debit account) for 2011 and 2012.

11. All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance for the 6/10/2010 which involved the alleged "looting" of the subject property prior to you moving in.

12. All documents relating to the insurance claims with Farmers Insurance relating to the 1 25/2011 fire loss at the subject property.

13. The complaint and restraining orders that John Hale filed against you and you against him. Although, I have the complaint you filed against him. 

  1. 14.  The contact information fro Randy & Elsie Hendricks (the people that were staying in the subject property at the time of the loss).

15. The contact information for Sergio Mendoza, the gentleman that allegedly gifted you the Kitchenaid oven, microwave and stovetop. In addition, please provide his telephone number.

16. All other receipt you believe you have.

17. As you know, several things had to be deleted from the expense claims sheet as there were either recovered, not stolen or never bought by you. As such, you indicated that you will go through the expense claim form to see if there are other items that need to be taken off of the list. Please do this and provide me with a revised list.

18. Receipt for the two suits from Men's Warehouse.

19. Contact information for Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia.

18. Provide your statements for your best buy credit card for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 When the Plaintiff provided the entirety of his bank records and telephone records and informed Cannot that he would have to subpoena records for the telephones from two of the phone companies, Eron unreasonably believed that the Plaintiff had to gain those records himself even though the Plaintiff also would have to subpoena the records.

 Plaintiff provided a wealth of documents to Eron while at the same time trying to safeguard his office and to minimize any more incursions on his home.   

 When the Plaintiff contacted Eron and informed him that he would need more time in order to provide the documents he demanded, Eron then issued a final letter of denial where in the letter he accused the Plaintiff of being broke and having motive to hide his things and claim insurance. 

 Plaintiff’s bank records provided to Eron shows no less than 259,000 in receipts to the Plaintiff for the 1 and a half year from June of 2010 through September of 2012. Yet ANPAC, through Eron Cannon, stated that the Plaintiff was destitute and had no money.

 ANPAC balked at the fact that the Plaintiff’s funds and his firm’s funds were comingled to an extent to be difficult to determine which was which without realizing that the Plaintiff could run his business any way he choose to do so and keep his funds in accounts any manner in which he choose.

 Wayne Rudder

231 Windy Ridge Lane Moxee, WA  98936-9356

 Re:       Claim No.: Policy No.: DOL:

Insured: File:

46-T-2EC807 and 46-T-2FF563

46-T-25512M

I 0/25/11 and 1125112

Wayne Rudder

In Re: Wayne Rudder

 

 Dear Mr. Rudder:

 American National General Insurance Company ("ANGIC") has completed its investigation and evaluation of your above-captioned claims. In summary, ANGIC respectfully denies coverage based upon the intentional acts provision, the fraud, misrepresentation and concealment provision, the cooperation clause and also exclusion of a claim due theft by a resident. All of these provisions are contained within your ANGIC Washington Tenants Homeowners Policy.

 ANGIC has also decided to rescind or rather void your policy. Under separate cover, ANGIC will send you a refund of any paid premiums back to the beginning of the effective period of coverage for this policy.

 ANGIC continues to reserve all other potential coverage defenses and rights as well as the potential application of any and all Policy terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions. The following paragraphs outline some of the facts that support this decision. Although this letter does not recite all of the known facts regarding this claim, you can rest assured that ANGJC reviewed and considered all known facts and circumstances before making its final decision.

 Your Examination under Oath ("EUO") took place in Yakima, Washington on February 8, 201 2.

 For the purposes of this denial, the following language from the ANGIC Washington Tenants Homeowners Policy is pertinent:

 

TENANTS POLICY FORM 4 AGREEMENT

 

We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable  provisions of this policy. The policy deductible applies to each Section I occurrence unless speci fically excepted. The deductible does not apply to Section II losses.

 

SECTION I- COVERAGES COVERAGE C - PERSONAL PROPERTY

We cover personal property owned or used by any insured while it is anywhere in the world.  At your request, we will cover personal property owned by others while the property is on the part of the residence premises occupied by an insured. Also, we will cover, at your request, personal property owned by a guest or a residence employee, while the property is in any residence occupied by any insured.

 

SECTION I- PERILS INSURED AGAINST

COVERAGES C - PERSONAL PROPERTY

 We insure for accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage C caused by the following perils, except as provided in SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS:

 Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is likely that the property has been stolen.

 

This peril does not include loss caused by theft:

 committed by any insured, or any person regularly residing on thevresidence premises;

SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS

 We will not pay for loss or damage caused by any of the following excluded events as described in items I . through 12. below.  Loss or damage will be considered to have been caused by an excluded event if that event directly and solely results in loss or damage, or initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence.

 Intentional Acts, meaning any loss arising out of any act committed; by or at the direction of any insured; and

 

  1. with the intent to cause a loss.

 

 SECTION I - CONDITIONS

 

2.     Your Duties After Loss.  In case of a loss to which this insurance may apply, you shall see that the following duties are performed;

  1. prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing in detail, the quantity, description, actual cash value, and amount ofloss.  Attach to the inventory all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the figures in the inventory;

 

  1. as often as we reasonably require:

 (2)        provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies.

 

 submit to us, within 60 days after we request, your signed, sworn statement of loss which sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief:

 ( I )      the time and cause of loss;   

'-------------       ·-····· ------       -----···· · -·

 (2)             interest of the insured and ail others in the property involved and all encumbrances on the property;

 (3)             other insurance which may cover the loss;

 (4)             changes in title or occupancy of the property during the terms of the policy;

 (5)             specifications of any damaged building and detailed estimates for repair of the damages;

 (6)             an inventory of damaged personal property in 2c;

 8.         Suit Against Us.  No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions and the action is started within one year after the occurrence causing loss or damage.

 SECTION I AND SECTION II- CONDITIONS

 2.         Concealment or Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, any  insured has willfully concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of any insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by any insured relating thereto.

 If we analyze the motives, means and opportunity that exist in the 10/2511 I claim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that you were intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from your home.

 It is quite apparent that you have minimal financial means. You have less than $1,000 in your checking and savings accounts and have over $7,700 in unpaid traffic ticket collection. You also have $1,400 in revolving account balances with Macy's, and according to your own testimony you "always spends all" of your money. Moreover, in the beginning of the claim, you informed ANGIC that you were financially stretched and were pressing for a quick resolution of this claim. You claim to have a take-home salary of $4,000 to $6,000 per month, but you did not substantiate that claim. Your take-home pay at that amount would also be contradictory to your statement that you did not make enough money to file federal tax returns. Considering your financial situation, you certainly had a motivation to stage the theft of certain items within your  home in order to claim $13,000 in losses. The $13,000 is a substantial amount to you  as it slightly exceeds your adjusted gross income per year.

 It is also important to note that you do not have any other money in savings, any retirement account, or, in fact, have any proof of ownership of the subject home. Even if you did, you could not afford the $2,700 mortgage per month.

 You go by several aliases, three of which have different social security numbers. You indicated that you use these aliases and different social security numbers in order to avoid paying traffic tickets. This ruse, along with use of several social security numbers for one individual, certainly makes it likely that you are not a credible individual. Moreover, you are utilizing these various social security numbers and aliases to file several lawsuits and also to obtain credit in revolving accounts such as being a secondary subscriber under Antonia Garcia.Marks' Macy's account and listed as Antolin Marks.

 You also hold yourself out as a licensed attorney in your business at Low Income Immigration Assistance. You appear to be practicing law without  a license and are misrepresenting your credentials on some of your websites. All of this in totality reveal that you are prone lo unethical behavior which may lead to an inference that you would have no issue in submitting a fraudulent insurance claim such as the 10/25/111 claim.

 You indicated that two renters, Randy and Elsie Hendricks, were at home and sleeping in the room next to your master bedroom at the time of the loss. The loss occurred between 2:30 and 9:30 p.m. You could not explain why the Hendrickses did not hear the loss as it was occurring. You admitted that it would most likely take more than one person to have taken all these items and also several trips to accomplish the theft. It is quite difficult to believe that the Hendrickses were at home at the time of the loss and did not hear a window being shattered, one or more persons shuffiing around the house carrying some heavy items and making several trips. You tried to explain that it was your belief that the Hendrickses did hear the loss, but did not leave the room for fear of being injured by the purported thieves. However, when asked in your EUO, if that was the case, why after the theft did they not call the police or yourself? You did not have an explanation for this.  Moreover, the Hendrickses did not even tell you that they heard the loss.

 You were obviously trying to establish an alibi, but realized after the EUO, that it was a weak one at best. You were requested to provide me with the contact information for the Hendrickses, and so far you have concealed this information.

 During the investigation, you mentioned several suspects that may have broken into your home on October 25, 201 1 . However, you indicated that the primary suspect was John Hale.  You also indicated  that  it was his belief that  Donnyel  Ggobert was involved  and provided  a detailed statement to the Yakima County Sheriff.  However, after you realized that Mr. Ggobert was in jail, you could no longer point to him as a suspect.  Mr. Hale as a suspect raises some questions and issues.  In the EUO, you explained that Mr. Hale was 5'6" tall, weighing 156 pounds.  Thus, it did not make any logical sense that Mr. Hale would have stolen over $6,000 worth of clothes that would never have fit him.  You tried to explain this away by indicating that Mr. Hale took these items out of "spite."  Moreover, at the EUO, you stated that you filed a detailed lawsuit against  Mr. Hale claiming fraud, deception, harassment, etc., in the amount of $259,000.   Thecomplaint adds quite a bit of colorful language as it pertains to the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Hale's  repair of your home. You most likely felt that the existence of this complaint against Mr. Hale would add credence to the claim that Mr. Hale was a suspect in the subject Joss. The Yakima County Sheriff dusted for fingerprints and could not find any foreign fingerprints, let alone those connected to John Hale. The claim that John Hale or Donnyel Ggobert were suspects appears to be contrived by you in order to shift focus on you as being the person who more likely than not fabricated this loss.

 As it pertains to the items allegedly stolen and the expense claim fonn submitted by you, there are some serious issues related to the same. In the initial discussion with the Yakima County Sheriff, on the date of the incident, you indicated that only four items  were stolen, which included a TV, computer, pressure washer and mower. On the expense claims fonn, there is no listing of a pressure washer or lawn mower. Further, this fonn lists well over 50 items which is a substantial difference from the four items that were claimed initially. This was even pointed out by the Yakima County Sheriff that the supplemental list was quite a bit larger and went "on and on." It appears that you were trying to pad the loss by claiming more items.  It is also important to point out that there is an unusually higb number of recent purchases in 2011, which does not comport with your financial condition. If, in fact, you were financially stretched as you said you were, it is unlikely that you could have afforded this large amount of items in 2011. You also could not provide receipts for some of the large ticket items, to include the TV, computer, men's suits from Men's Warehouse, etc. It is also interesting to note that the clothes that you allegedly purchased from  Macy's in the amount of over $6,000, you were only able to provide documentation as to approximately $1,700 worth of items. Those that you did provide documentation for, they arc under the account of Antonia Garcia-Marks and a secondary subscriber of Antolin Marks. Interestingly enough, you have a balance of approximately $1 ,400 with Macy's at this time.  In one of the claimed items within the expense claim sheet, you claim a Samsung BD Blu-ray player for $163.51 that appears to have been actually returned, rather than purchased.  Thus, you may have, in fact, purchased these clothing items from Macy's, made a claim on the same, and then returned those items.

 Based upon the foregoing facts and inferences, the preponderance of the evidence shows that you were more likely than not involved in the theft of items from your home. Consequently, this would not be considered an "accidental" loss as described in the ANGIC policy definitions above.

 As it pertains to fraud and misrepresentation and concealment of material facts in this claim, the following is pertinent:

 As stated above, you provided an expense claim report to both the  Yakima  County Sheriff and ANGIC. Initially, the Yakima County Sheriff investigated the loss on the date that it purportedly occurred, and you claimed that only a computer, TV, lawn mower and pressure washer were stolen. However, you then provided a supplemental expense claim fonn which listed over 50 items. Absent from this list is the pressure washer and lawn mower earlier claimed to have been stolen.   It is astounding that you, on the date of the incident, did not notice over

$6,000 worth of clothing items missing, as well as a microwave, oven, countertop stove, camera, computer monitors, printer, home entertainment system, receiver, etc. Even the Yakima County Sheriff recognized this to be quite curious as they said the supplemental list went "on and on."

 More  likely  than  not,  you  were  misrepresenting  the  actual  items  allegedly  stolen  from  your home.    You  may  have  felt  emboldened   after  the  initial  investigation  by  the  Yakima  County Sheriff and thought  you  could justify  a much  larger claim than previously  concocted.   You must have forgotten  that  you  told  the police  a pressure  washer  and  lawn  mower  was  stolen.   In  the expense claim form, dated November  I , 2011 , you had items on that claim form which were not, in   fact,  stolen,   or   were  not   even   yours   in   the   first   place.        When   confronted   with   the inconsistencies  of the  expense  claim  while  at  your  EUO,  you  attempted  to  explain  that  one of your  many  assistants  helped  you  prepare  the  expense  claim  form  and  that  you  should  have looked  at it more  carefully.    Nevertheless,  you did  admit  to  taking responsibility  for this  form and signing it in the presence of a notary.   You did withdraw various items on the expense claim form  due  to  the  above  reasons.    When  adding  up  all  the  items  that  you  withdrew  from  the expense claim  form, it  amounted  to $2,513.99.   However,  if you  also add the kitchen  top stove, which  you  indicated  he allegedly  "found" in the bushes  of your home, the total  amount  adds up to $3,927.99.   Jn your EUO, you realized your inconsistencies  and backed off and volunteered  to go  back  through  the  expense  claim  form  and  to  see  if  there  are  other  items  that  need  to  be stricken  from  the  claim.    To date, you  have  not  followed  through  on that  promise.    The  two major items that you misrepresented  on the expense claim  form  is the KitchenAid  microwave of $832.98 and the KitchenAid top oven of $!,200.99.

 You also submitted a Best Buy account of purchases invoice for a one Maria Aguilar. You admitted that this was not your account, and it was a mistake on the part of Best Buy to provide you with this information. Nevertheless, that did not stop you from claiming some of her items on the expense claim form. While the items do not necessarily amount to much, around $100, it is quite telling  that there were specific items taken out of Ms. Aguilar's purchase statement which appeared to be deliberate. In other words, if in fact you had  an assistant go through Ms. Aguilar's purchase statement, one wonders how the assistant decided to pick those items. More likely than not, you directed the assistant to claim those items. Further, and along those Jines, you provided the Best Buy purchasing statements for Antolin Marks. There appears to be over I 00 purchases, and without your direct involvement, one wonders how the assistant decided to pick certain items. More likely than not, you had direct involvement in listing the items on the expense claim form.

 It is also important to note the apparent misrepresentation by you that you purchased a Denon 75 watt 5 change audio/video receiver. You indicate on the expense claim form that you purchased this item on August 5, 2011,  but  when  looking  at  the  Best  Buy  purchasing  statement  for Mr. Marks, if you look at the column entitled "Type," it indicates whether the item was a sale or POS exchange. Further, under the "Price" section, it indicates an amount, either with parenthesis or without parenthesis. Best Buy Customer Service Support states that if the item is under "Type" and it says "POS exchange," and the price has parenthesis around it, that means that item was returned. Based upon the sales history provided, you claimed two items on the expense claim form that you actually returned to Best Buy. These items are the Denon audio/video receiver of August 5, 201 1 for $249.99 and the Easy LP to MP3 item purchased on July 19, 201 1 for $77.49, and returned on July 22, 2011.

 There are a variety of items which we requested of you and you agreed to provide. Please see the list below:

   Federal tax returns or any other documents used for federal returns between the dates of 2007 and 2011 under all the social security numbers and names that he uses.

 Full social security number for Vincent Daniel Hopper.

 Cell phone records for October, November and December 2011.

 The Balboa Insurance Homeowners policy for the subject home.

 Copies of bank account records showing any debit counts for 2011 and 2012.

 All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance for June 10, 2010, which involved the alleged "looting" of the subject property prior to him moving in.

 All documents relating to the insurance claim with Farmers Insurance of January 25, 2011 pertaining to the fire loss of the subject property.

 Contact information for Randy and Elsie Hendricks.

 i.    Contact information for Sergio Mendoza, the gentleman that allegedly gifted the KitchenAid oven, microwave and stovetop to Mr. Rudder.

 An updated expense claim sheet identifying additional items that were not stolen or never owned by him.

 Receipts for the two suits from Men's Warehouse.

 Contact information for Francisco Moreno and Antonia Garcia-Marks.

 Bust Buy credit card statements for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 All other receipts that you believe you have in your possession, which is "easy to substantiate." You made this comment pertaining to the clothing items he purchased from Macy's.

 As of this date, you have failed to provide the majority of the above information. Considering that these items are accessible to you and you have failed to provide this material information, it appears that you are intentionally concealing this information from ANGIC.

 Based upon all the above evidence, you clearly committed fraud and  made material misrepresentations and concealed material information during this investigation.

 As it pertains to the 1/25/12 loss, it clearly appears to be a similar incident involving the same master bathroom window, which was purportedly broken into and used to enter the premises and in order to steal various items from your home. You stated that one of the tenants of his home, Luis Torres, more likely than not, stole these items from you.  However, you have not confronted

 Mr. Torres and asked him  where these items are. Considering that more likely than not, Mr. Torres stole items from your home and was also a resident, ANGIC is denying the January 25, 2012 claim under Exclusion 9 in Section I - Perils Against The Insured, wherein it states that a peril  does not include a loss cause by a theft: "committed by an insured, or any person regularly residing on the residence premises. " Thus, since Mr. Torres resides at the subject premises, and more likely than  not stole the items from you, then  the 1/25/12 claim is not covered.

 Additionally, as it pertains to the 1/25/12 loss, you have failed to provide your sworn proof of loss within 60 days.

 Please note that your Policy and the law contain certain time limits for bringing actions against ANGIC, some of which may be less than one year from the date of this letter. Although the limitation period(s) may have been tolled during the time that ANGIC was evaluating this claim, the tolling will end upon the conclusion of this claim. Thus, at this point, the claims of 10/25/11 and 1/25/12 are deemed denied for purposes of all time limitations.

 Furthermore, because you have misrepresented and concealed material facts, it is certainly possible that ANGIC is not aware of all relevant facts and that the true facts would result in further grounds to deny coverage for your claim of I 0/25/11. ANGIC is fully reserving its right to assert any additional rights and defenses as well as the application of any and all Policy terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions.

 This coverage decision is based on the facts known to date. If you believe there are facts or arguments which may be relevant to this decision or if any of the above mentioned facts are in error, then please notify the undersigned and send me this information so ANGIC may consider any such new information.

 Sincerely,

 

 Stacey Jennings

Special Investigations Unit

American National General Insurance Company P.0. Box 3558

Springfield, MO  65808-3558

 

  1. Many of the items demanded by Eric Cannon could not be produced, and he knew that he could subpoena the items from third parties but failed to do so: For instance, tax records which the Plaintiff did not have; Macy Credit Card Statements which the Plaintiff did not have, Best Buy Credit Card statements which were not even in existence since there was never a Best Buy Credit Card, Information relating to Antonia Garcia and Francisco Moreno; information related to Vincent Daniel Hopper;

 Mr. Cannon took issue with the fact that the Supplemental List provided to the Sheriff’s Department went “on and on”, however, the fact is that at the time the Sheriff arrived at the home, the Sheriff took no inventory and that was left to be provided to a supplemental list to be provided to the Sheriff as it is done in every single case in Yakima County.

 Cannon stated that it was more likely than not that the gardener, Luis Angel Munoz Torres, stole the items from the home and only his blatant racism is given for that conclusion.  In fact, Luis and Jose had been in the home for almost three years and enjoyed the items in the house more than the Plaintiff was able to. 

 It was clear from the facts evident that John Hale was the culprit in the theft of the Denon Receiver and the first burglary where he took the television from the bedroom, the computers, computer related items, and other things.  The second theft also bore the MO of Hale, but the third burglary where just everything else was taken was a bit perplexing in that it did not appear that the culprit was John Hale because John Hale was a music enthusiast and would have taken the best speakers which were bulky, but the speakers were not taken and they were left behind. This led the Plaintiff to believe that someone else had taken these items.

 ANPAC cites that the Plaintiff did not accuse Luis of the theft but the Plaintiff did not have the duty to accuse anyone regarding the thefts at all. The fact is that the policy stated that ANPAC would indemnify the Plaintiff from any losses made at the house and they failed to do so. The only responsibility the Plaintiff had was to report the claim and then supporting documentation. 

 The fact that ANPAC delayed for several months, and the fact that they have called the Plaintiff a thief, defrauder, and concealer of things to commit fraud is reprehensible and completely unfounded. 

 The Plaintiff cooperated with ANPAC to the best of his ability.  Some documentation was impossible to gain as they did not exist. Others were commonly available to both parties and ANPAC should have been able to gain those documents such as their own policy, the policy of Balboa, etc. Their entire behavior in this matter was deliberately bad faith.

 On or about July 25th 2013 when the Plaintiff decided to take legal action he called and spoke to Lindsay Vanzandt and he requested that they send him a copy of the claims and proof of loss filed in each claim. She mysteriously claimed that the Proof of Loss was never filed in the claims when the Chase Bank employees will testify that they notarized the Proof of Loss and their mailing system was used to mail the documents to ANPAC. 

 ANPAC denied the claim based upon, they stated, “the fraud, misrepresentation and concealment provision, the cooperation clause and also exclusion of a claim due theft by a resident” but their actions amount to racism against the Hispanic residents of the home and racism against the Plaintiff who is Black. What they call concealment is the fact that some documents were just not available to anyone like the Best Buy Credit Card Receipts since there were never credit cards from best Buy and every item was purchased using Debit cards from the Bank of America, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Money Tree Premier Cash Solution Cards.

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that the ANPAC Insurance Company engaged in racism in their decisions on this claim (s).

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that ANPAC Insurance Company engaged in bad faith.

 It is the claim of the Plaintiff that ANPAC voided and cancelled the policy without the required thirty day notice under Washington State law and this violated the contract between ANPAC and the Plaintiff and breached such contract.

 It is specially claimed that ANPAC libeled the Plaintiff and slandered the Plaintiff and his employees Luis Angel Torres Munoz in their writings and their statements to the effect that they called the Plaintiff a thief and a defrauder.  To wit:  ANPAC stated, “If we analyze the motives, means and opportunity that exist in the 10/2511 I claim, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that you were intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from your home.”  Plaintiff disavows the statement that he was “intentionally involved in staging the theft of items from” his home.  Plaintiff will prove that the statement was racist, and self-serving by ANPAC. 

 Moreover, Plaintiff claims that these statements does not fall within the legal exception to libel and slander and was deliberately made to denigrate the plaintiff and his employees.

 Further, the statement by ANPAC, “It is quite apparent that you have minimal financial means. You have less than $1,000 in your checking and savings accounts and have over $7,700 in unpaid traffic ticket collection. You also have $1,400 in revolving account balances with Macy's, and according to your own testimony you "always spends all" of your money. Moreover, in the beginning of the claim, you informed ANGIC that you were financially stretched and were pressing for a quick resolution of this claim. You claim to have a take-home salary of $4,000 to $6,000 per month, but you did not substantiate that claim.” is directly disputed by the Bank records of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, U.S. Bank and Chase Bank. Which shows cumulative deposited income of over 259,000 for the period in question.

 Further, ANPAC’s statement, “Considering your financial situation, you certainly had a motivation to stage the theft of certain items within your  home in order to claim $13,000 in losses. The $13,000 is a substantial amount to you  as it slightly exceeds your adjusted gross income per year.”  Is completely without foundation and is calculated to slander and libel and demand the Plaintiff and such is controvered by all evidence presented to ANPAC.

 ANPAC also stated the following:  “It is also important to note that you do not have any other money in savings, any retirement account, or, in fact, have any proof of ownership of the subject home. Even if you did, you could not afford the $2,700 mortgage per month.”  First, the home has been undergoing modification under the Attorney General’s Settlement and the Making Homes Affordable Plan. Second, the amount of the mortgage is certainly dwarfed by the mean average of income which represents over 15,000 in income for the period in question.

 It is believed that ANPAC’s representative was jaundiced in that he saw a Black man with an office staff of four persons and a clerk with three officers and designed to destroy that man with his words and actions and this was based purely upon racism.

 ANPAC also stated, “You go by several aliases, three of which have different social security numbers. You indicated that you use these aliases and different social security numbers in order to avoid paying traffic tickets. This ruse, along with use of several social security numbers for one individual, certainly makes it likely that you are not a credible individual. Moreover, you are utilizing these various social security numbers and aliases to file several lawsuits and also to obtain credit in revolving accounts such as being a secondary subscriber under Antonia Garcia.Marks' Macy's account and listed as Antolin Marks.”  However, ANPAC misstates the facts.  The Plaintiff did at one time go by each of the names in question, Vincent Daniel Hopper, Antolin Andrew Marks and Wayne R. E. Rudder, but each of the names were properly changed by Court action and the SSN relative to each name was individual to those names rather than any attempt to subvert justice.  Far from the assertion by ANPAC that the names were used to avoid paying traffic tickets, the names were utilized when Plaintiff was in the process of running from abusive parents who sought to force Plaintiff to commit acts on his body not consistent with reasonability and which were born from homophobia. The credit card from Macy’s under Antolin marks was consistent with the name at the time and which was the legal name of the Plaintiff, these facts are ascertainable through legal records in the Yakima County District Court and the King County District Court, ANPAC knew this fact as they were provided with the certified copies of the name changes.

 ANPAC stated, “You also hold yourself out as a licensed attorney in your business at Low Income Immigration Assistance. You appear to be practicing law without  a license and are misrepresenting your credentials on some of your websites. All of this in totality reveal that you are prone lo unethical behavior which may lead to an inference that you would have no issue in submitting a fraudulent insurance claim such as the 10/25/111 claim.” This is false. First, the Low Cost Immigration Assistance Agency is a firm licensed in Yakima County and the State of Washington. It is a corporation which provides service to immigrants in immigration matters.  As such, there is no necessity to have a Bar License. Moreover, since the firm utilizes contract attorneys for its journeys into court, there is no possibility of “practicing law without a license.”  Moreover, none of this is relevant to the twin questions:  A. Was there a policy in place for the theft of items from Plaintiff’s home?  B. Did a theft occur?  Jealousy does a lot of things and this is a case of Eron Z. Cannon being insanely jealous at the Plaitniff and his success where, whether or not the Plaintiff is an attorney he still is the only person, alive or dead, to have gained Four 4) published decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where he won the issue presented. Eron Z. Cannon has none (0).

 ANPAC stated, “You indicated that two renters, Randy and Elsie Hendricks, were at home and sleeping in the room next to your master bedroom at the time of the loss. The loss occurred between 2:30 and 9:30 p.m. You could not explain why the Hendrickses did not hear the loss as it was occurring. You admitted that it would most likely take more than one person to have taken all these items and also several trips to accomplish the theft. It is quite difficult to believe that the Hendrickses were at home at the time of the loss and did not hear a window being shattered, one or more persons shuffiing around the house carrying some heavy items and making several trips. You tried to explain that it was your belief that the Hendrickses did hear the loss, but did not leave the room for fear of being injured by the purported thieves. However, when asked in your EUO, if that was the case, why after the theft did they not call the police or yourself? You did not have an explanation for this.  Moreover, the Hendrickses did not even tell you that they heard the loss.”  The fact is that ANPAC were informed that the Hendrickses had a habit of staying up all night playing video games on their laptop and sleeping during the day. Moreover, ANPAC was told that Elsie and Randy Hendricks moved out of the building two months after the theft but could not be reached. ANPAC could have taken steps to locate the Hendrickses, but it was not the duty of the Plaintiff to locate the Hendrickses unless he needs them to appear in court which he will certainly do.  The Hendrickses were certainly at home asleep at the time of the robbery.  They failed to hear any incursion on the property because they were asleep. Although Plaintiff believed that they may have heard the incident but were afraid, that is just a belief and not a fact.  Only the Hendrickses can state their feeling. They have stated they were asleep and that is all the Plaitniff can believe from their statements. There is no evidence to dispute such and Eron Cannon’s conclusions are just that, conclusions and speculations without evidence otherwise.

 ANPAC states, “You were obviously trying to establish an alibi, but realized after the EUO, that it was a weak one at best. You were requested to provide me with the contact information for the Hendrickses, and so far you have concealed this information.” But the Plaintiff again asserts that the statement is libelous and slanderous for its implying that the Plaintiff is a thief and defrauder who needed to establish an alibi. The Plaintiff was at work as he was at work every single day from sometimes 4:00a m to the eleven at night, with the occasional overnighter at the office. Further, the Plaintiff did not have any information relating to Elsie and Randy Hendricks to give to ANPAC because they had moved and were then living in motels.

 ANPAC states, “During the investigation, you mentioned several suspects that may have broken into your home on October 25, 201 1 . However, you indicated that the primary suspect was John Hale.  You also indicated  that  it was his belief that  Donnyel  Ggobert was involved  and provided  a detailed statement to the Yakima County Sheriff.  However, after you realized that Mr. Gobert was in jail, you could no longer point to him as a suspect.  Mr. Hale as a suspect raises some questions and issues.  In the EUO, you explained that Mr. Hale was 5'6" tall, weighing 156 pounds.  Thus, it did not make any logical sense that Mr. Hale would have stolen over $6,000 worth of clothes that would never have fit him.  You tried to explain this away by indicating that Mr. Hale took these items out of "spite."  Moreover, at the EUO, you stated that you filed a detailed lawsuit against  Mr. Hale claiming fraud, deception, harassment, etc., in the amount of $259,000.   The complaint adds quite a bit of colorful language as it pertains to the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Hale's  repair of your home. You most likely felt that the existence of this complaint against Mr. Hale would add credence to the claim that Mr. Hale was a suspect in the subject Joss. The Yakima County Sheriff dusted for fingerprints and could not find any foreign fingerprints, let alone those connected to John Hale. The claim that John Hale or Donnyel Ggobert were suspects appears to be contrived by you in order to shift focus on you as being the person who more likely than not fabricated this loss.”  However, Mr. Cannon did not live in that area and he did not experience the disdain Plaintiff lived through with John Hale after the worker/employee relationship went sour where Mr. Hale would stand at the driveway and shout, “n****r, n****r,” to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff came down the drive. Donnyel and hale were friends and it was believed that both were involved, but it became clear that Donnyel was in jail and could not be in two places at once and thus it was shown that Hale alone, along with his children had been the culprits.  The Yakima County Sheriff did not, as is asserted, “dust for prints.”  They never have during these incidents. It would be futile since Hale and his children had been in the house working on the sheetrock in the kitchen and the living room. The idea that the Plaintiff, “more than likely fabricated the loss,” is easily disputed by the evidence of the Plaintiff’s four secretaries who would have testified that the Plaintiff had been at the office at all occasions and will be disputed in Court by the Insurance Agent of ANPAC who had been to the home on three occasions with his family and knew the intimate details of the house and its contents.  Dan Williams, the agent, quit his job with ANPAC shortly afterwards since he could not believe their actions in this case.

 ANPAC goes on to dispute several individual purchases at Best Buy in Yakima. They cite the Denon Receiver which they believe was returned, a Samsung Blu-Ray Player, and other items, but they deliberately omit the fact that shows that the items returned were replaced the very sae day and time with items which were the same items but which worked instead of not working. For example the Best Buy documents show that Three Easy LP To CD were purchased and two returned.  They were returned because they were faulty and the one that was kept was eventually stolen. The statements of ANPAC are reaching to the extreme. Their attempts to avoid this loss has even gone to the extreme of seeking prosecution of the Plaintiff, an act which has been rejected by the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney. There is just too much evidence that this is just a case of racism by ANPAC and an attempt to avoid paying their fair share of the losses that they incurred in this policy.

 In reality, ANPAC, given the facts of this case, maybe should never have issued a policy on this home. The home is remote there is no security and even if there was, it would take the responders some 45 minutes to reach the scene. Cameras are out of the question as it would take 36 cameras to secure a property where those cameras would be thwarted by a person with a raincoat over his head.  Plaintiff, of course, has choices as to where he lives, but a person should not be run out of his house by thieves and a thieving racist insurance company.

 It is the Claim of the Plaintiff that ANPAC Insurance did violate the terms of the policy and this violation was meant to defraud the Plaintiff and to breach the contract held between ANPAC and the Plaintiff.

 For these claims, the Plaintiff demands a jury trial and an award of specific damages and punitive damages in the amount of 26,980 specific damages and 580,000 in punitive damages.

 Under the penalty of perjury I do attest that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and are related to facts that I have access to such information.

 Submitted on the date of 8/15/2013.

Wayne R. E. Rudder.

____________________

Wayne R. E. Rudder

                                                                              

Attorney for Plaintiffs

 

PROOF OF SERVICE & DECLARATION

I, Wayne R. E. Rudder, A PARTY TO THIS ACTION DO HEREBY AVER THAT I HAVE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT

To DSHS Counsel at    

I WILL TESTIFY UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THIS IS THE TRUTH.

THE ITEMS WERE MAILED FIRST CLASS MAIL ON THE DATE BELOW. 

 SUBMITTED ON 6/23/2013

Wayne R. E. Rudder, Signature


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/15/2013 09:29 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/ANPAC-Insurance-Agency/-Galveston-Texas-77550/ANPAC-Insurance-Agency-ANGIC-Insurance-William-L-Moody-Fraud-Breach-of-Contract-Racis-1076053. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on ANPAC Insurance Agency

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.