The Hartford aka; Sentinel Insurance Katharine Barse Insured an uninsured building,changed or altered policy,used typical tactics to deny claim;made slanderous remarks on tape regarding my sexuality, Placed the lives of minors in jeopardy, reckless enda Internet

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND                                                          SUPERIOR
COURT

PROVIDENCE COUNTY

 

DENNIS AKERVIK, also known as

DENNIS COELHO, individually and

doing business as C&J INVESTMENTS, LTD. 

 

v.

 

MASTORS & SERVANT LTD.

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH
OF CONTRACT NEGLIGENCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE BAD FAITH

 

Now comes the Plaintiff Dennis
Akervik, also known as Dennis Coelho, individually and doing business as
C&J Investments, Ltd. (Coelho), by and through his attorney of record and
for his complaint against Defendants, The Hartford Insurance Company, Sentinel
Insurance Company Ltd., Mastors & Servant Ltd. and states as follows:

 

PARTIES

 


Plaintiff
Coelho, at all material times hereto was the Resident of Providence Rhode
Island.  


 


Defendant
Mastors and Servant Limited is a company incorporated in Rhode Island with
its business offices in East Greenwich RI licensed to do business in the
City of Providence, in the State of Rhode Island. 


 


Defendant
the Hartford Insurance Company is a corporation, headquartered in Hartford
Connecticut licensed to do business in Rhode Island. 


 


Defendant
Sentinel Insurance Company Limited is a company incorporated in the State
of Connecticut and the City of Hartford. 
It is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Hartford Insurance Company
and is licensed to do business in the state of Rhode Island. 


 


Upon
information and belief defendant Mastors & Servant Ltd. at all times
material hereto was a resident of East Greenwich, Rhode Island and was
licensed to sell insurance as an agent of the defendant Hartford Insurance
in the State of Rhode Island and the city of Providence.  


 

FACTS

 


On or
about January 2010, Dennis Coelho leased the 10,000 square foot commercial
property space known as Unit 302, located at 230 239 Oak St. in
Providence Rhode Island.  This space
was to be utilized as Coelhos art studio.


 


On or
about the Month of March 2010, security cameras were installed on Unit 302
and other surrounding units by Alarm Pro Video and Security of Providence,
Rhode Island. 


 


On or
about the Month of March 2010 Dennis Coelho purchased a Hartford business
insurance policy from agent John McNeil of Mastors & Servant Ltd for
C& J Investments. 


 


At
that time Mr. McNeil conducted a walk through of unit 302.  Dennis Coelho was assured by Mr. McNeil
that no further measures would be necessary to obtain insurance. 


 


Dennis
Coelho asked if it would be necessary to document his artwork by
photograph or other means.  He was
informed that this would not be necessary to obtain insurance. 


 


Dennis
Coelho asked if it would be necessary to produce any business records to
receive insurance.  Mr. McNeil
informed him that this would not be necessary.  


 


The
policy became effective on June 1, 2010. 



 


On or
about June 20, 2010 Dennis Coelho went to retrieve the art work stored at
the North West area of unit 302 and discovered all works were missing.


 


 Shortly thereafter Dennis Coelho
contacted his insurance agent, John McNeil to inform him of the missing
paintings. 


 


Mr.
McNeil informed Dennis Coelho that he would have to report the items
stolen and fill out a report to have his claim processed in a more
expedient manner.


 


On or
about July 21, 2010 building materials that were to be utilized in unit
302s planned renovation were reported stolen to John McNeil. 


 


On or
about July 28, 2010 Kerry Anderson, Building official from the Department
of Inspections and Standards conducted a building inspection at the
request of the Providence Fire Department.


 


 On July 30, 2010, Kerry Anderson cited 6
unsafe conditions making the building a hazard to occupy.  All the occupants of 239 Oak St. were
ordered to immediately vacate the premises.


 


On or
about August 4, 2010 a representative of Dennis Coelho went to 239 Oak St.
to retrieve items and was unable to enter because James Searles had
changed the locks.  As a result
Dennis Coelho was unable to determine the extent of loss to report to
Sentinel. 


 


Throughout
the course of this investigation Dennis Coelho both individually and
through his attorneys has provided both Sentinel and the Hartford with
names, locations, and numbers of his appraisers and accountants for the
appropriate records to ascertain the amount of his claim. 


 


On
November 5, 2010 a meeting was held under oath between Dennis Coelho and
Sentinels attorneys.  The meeting
ended when Sentinel refused to process the lost artwork claim because
Sentinel was not satisfied with the documents produced.


 


During
this time and throughout the investigation conducted by insurers Sentinel,
The Hartford, and Mastors and Servants, Dennis Coelho has maintained that
numerous documents requested were in the possession of Joyce Searles who
would not cooperate with any demands by Dennis Coelho to produce
them.    


 


Dennis
Coelho through his attorneys had informed Sentinel as late as June 9, 2011
that Dennis Coelho could not produce the required information at that time
due to the actions of James Searles and were continuing in their efforts
to comply with Sentinels requests. 
Dennis Coelho through his attorneys also provided information
documenting the lost items value and the Private Investigators report
regarding the stolen artwork.


 


 On June 30, 2011 another letter was sent
through Sentinels attorney alleging a lack of information provided by
Dennis Coelho regarding the second claim of misappropriation of business
materials.   


 


Despite
the June 9, 2011 letter stating Dennis Coelhos current inability to
produce all the materials related to the stolen property a July 30, 2011
letter was sent from the Hartford denying the claim for stolen artworks
because there were no signs of theft. The letter also stated that the
claim for stolen building materials was still pending but the information
provided by Dennis Coelho was insufficient to process the reported claim.


 


 On September 13, 2011 a letter was sent
through Dennis Coelhos attorneys informing Sentinels attorneys that
their second claim for misappropriation of 
business materials could not be completed due to the inability to
get into 239 Oak St. to assess the damage.  


 


At the
time Dennis Coelho finally gained entry to the building he found completed
and incomplete works of art vandalized. 
Dennis also discovered that the inventory for his internet mall had
been taken.   


 


On
February 28, 2011 Kathleen Barse of The Hartford sent a letter requesting
more information to complete the second claim for misappropriation of
building materials and a broader third claim for complete loss of
business.  Mrs. Barse also agreed to
schedule another examination under oath to substantiate the claim on March
21, 2012.


 


A
letter dated March 7, 2012 was sent through Dennis Coelhos attorneys to
Kathleen Barse informing her that he was willing to proceed with the
examination under oath.  Phone calls
were sent through Dennis Coelhos attorneys to confirm said meeting which
were not returned.


 


On or
about March 24, 2012 a follow up letter was sent by and through Dennis
Coelhos attorneys stating that he was willing to proceed but had received
no confirmation of the examination. 
Continued phone calls went unreturned by The Hartford. 


 

COUNT 1 Bad Faith
Mastors and Servant Ltd

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


That
at the time Plaintiff purchased the aforementioned business policy
from    defendant Mastors and
Servant Ltd, they placed their trust in said defendant and its employees
to act in good faith and in a reasonable manner in the event plaintiff
should ever make a claim against such insurance.


 


Defendant
Mastors and Servant Ltds employees, were in a fiduciary relationship with
plaintiff and were under a duty to use the skill, care, and knowledge of
other claims representatives and underwriters practicing as insurance
claims representatives and underwriters in evaluating and investigating
claims made by defendants insured in a prompt and thorough manner.


 


Defendant
Mastors and Servant Ltds employees either intentionally or, in the
alternative, negligently failed to investigate Plaintiff's claims in a
prompt and thorough manner as they were required to do, and as a direct
and proximate result, plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and will
suffer monetary damages in the future in an amount not presently
determinable but to be proven at the time of trial.


 

COUNT II Breach of
Contract Mastors and Servant Ltd.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


Defendant
Mastors and Servant Ltd. expressed and/or implied representation that it
would in good faith, and thoroughly, investigate and process any claims
plaintiff may make on their policy of insurance with defendant Mastors and
Servant Ltd. was material to the formation of the contract of insurance
with defendant Mastors and Servant Ltd.


 


Defendant
Mastors and Servant Ltd. is in breach of said contract of insurance and,
as a result, plaintiff has incurred monetary damages as aforesaid and
defendant is therefore liable for all such damages suffered by plaintiff.


 

 

COUNT III Specific
Performance Mastors and Servant Ltd.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


As an
alternative cause of action, plaintiff requests that the court order
defendant to specifically perform under its contract of insurance with
plaintiff.


 

COUNT IV Bad Faith
Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


That
at the time Plaintiff contracted for the aforementioned business policy
from    defendant Sentinel
Insurance, they placed their trust in said defendant and its employees to
act in good faith and in a reasonable manner in the event plaintiff should
ever make a claim against such insurance.


 


Defendant
Sentinel Insurance Companies employees were in a fiduciary relationship
with plaintiff and were under a duty to use the skill, care, and knowledge
of other claims representatives and underwriters practicing as insurance
claims representatives and underwriters in evaluating and investigating claims
made by defendants insured in a prompt and thorough manner.


 


Defendant
Sentinel Insurance Companies employees either intentionally or, in the
alternative, negligently failed to investigate plaintiff's claims in a
prompt and thorough manner as they were required to do, and as a direct
and proximate result, plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and will
suffer monetary damages in the future in an amount not presently
determinable but to be proven at the time of trial.


 

COUNT V Breach of
Contract Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


Defendant
Sentinel Insurance Company expressed and/or implied representation that it
would in good faith, and thoroughly, investigate and process any claims
plaintiff may make on their policy of insurance with defendant Sentinel
Insurance Company was material to the formation of the contract of
insurance with defendant Sentinel Insurance Company.


 


Defendant
Sentinel Insurance Company is in breach of said contract of insurance and,
as a result, plaintiff has incurred monetary damages as aforesaid and
defendant is therefore liable for all such damages suffered by plaintiff.


 

COUNT VI Specifice
Performance Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


As an
alternative cause of action, plaintiff requests that the court order
defendant to specifically perform under its contract of insurance with
plaintiff.


 

COUNT
VII Bad Faith The Hartford Insurance Company

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


 That at the time Plaintiff contracted for
the aforementioned business policy from   
defendant The Hartford Insurance Company independently, and through
its subsidiary company, Sentinel Insurance, they placed their trust in
said defendant and its employees to act in good faith and in a reasonable
manner in the event Plaintiff should ever make a claim against such
insurance.


 


Defendant
Hartford Insurance Company through its subsidiary company the Sentinel
Insurance Companies employees were in a fiduciary relationship with
Plaintiff and were under a duty to use the skill, care, and knowledge of
other claims representatives and underwriters practicing as insurance
claims representatives and underwriters in evaluating and investigating
claims made by defendants insured in a prompt and thorough manner.


 


Defendant
Hartford Insurance Company through it subsidiary company and its employees
either intentionally or, in the alternative, negligently failed to
investigate Plaintiff's claims in a prompt and thorough manner as they
were required to do, and as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has
suffered monetary damages and will suffer monetary damages in the future
in an amount not presently determinable but to be proven at the time of
trial.


 

COUNT VIII Breach
of Contract The Hartford Insurance Company

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


Defendant
The Hartford Insurance Company, through its subsidiary, Sentinel Insurance
Company, and its agents and employees, expressed and/or implied
representation that it would in good faith, and thoroughly, investigate
and process any claims Plaintiff may make on their policy of insurance
with defendant Sentinel Insurance Company was material to the formation of
the contract of insurance with defendant Sentinel Insurance Company.


 


Defendant
The Hartford Insurance Company is in breach of said contract of insurance
and, as a result, Plaintiff has incurred monetary damages as aforesaid and
defendant is therefore liable for all such damages suffered by Plaintiff.


 

COUNT VI Specific
Performance The Hartford Insurance Company.

 


Plaintiff
incorporates and repeats the prior allegations as though fully set forth
herein.


 


As an
alternative cause of action, Plaintiff requests that the court order
defendant to specifically perform under its contract of insurance with
Plaintiff.


 

WHEREFORE by reason of the premise described herein,
plaintiff respectfully requests for an award jointly and severally against
defendants Mastors & Servant Insurance Ltd., Sentinel Insurance Ltd, The
Hartford Insurance and for compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at
the time of trial, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the
trier of fact, for reasonable attorney's fees and costs, for prejudgment
interest, for postjudgment interest, and for such other and further relief as
this Court deems just and proper.