Court: Insurer Must Pay Massachusetts for Bonded Thefts

August 13, 2009

  • August 13, 2009 at 1:07 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is very poorly written. A small bit of background on this would be helpful. Why was the claim rejected and why did the court rule against them?

  • August 13, 2009 at 2:02 am
    Anthrax says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree … a lot of these articles seem like they got snipped off halfway.

  • August 13, 2009 at 4:06 am
    Mrs Dean Wormer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here’s a bit more info:

    Treasury theft reemerges in appeals court ruling
    By Kyle Cheney
    Tue Aug 04, 2009, 07:35 AM EDT

    Boston – The theft of millions of dollars from the state Treasury in the late 1990s reemerged Monday when the state’s second highest court called for a reassessment of how much the state is owed in damages.

    The state Appeals Court, upholding a Superior Court ruling, determined that Hanover Insurance Company, which insured the state at the time against costs incurred because of “dishonest” actions by public employees, must pony up thousands of dollars to help cover the costs associated with the theft.

    “This is a very good win for us,” said Grace Lee, first deputy treasurer, in a phone interview. “This is the resolution that the commonwealth expected, and unfortunately, we believe, should’ve been paid out back in 1999, without having to go through litigation.”

    Lee said the state expected to claim about $415,000 in damages, plus interest from the company. The appeals court remanded the case to the Superior Court to reassess how much the state is owed.

    During the initial litigation, Hanover Insurance Company had argued that it denied the state’s claim because the Treasury had misrepresented its oversight structure. The court rejected that argument, although not before pointing out that a Treasury official who testified – as well as an official with the insurance company – offered “contradictory” testimony. “[A]t times, they even appeared to contradict their own testimony,” according to the ruling, written by associate justice Kent Smith.

    In February 1999, Attorney General Thomas Reilly charged 20-year Treasury employee John Trischitta with stealing $6.58 million from a treasury fund and funneling it to an accomplice in New Hampshire.

    With cooperation from Trischitta, authorities the next month charged Deputy Treasurer Robert Foley with attempting to bilk the same fund for $2.4 million.

    The investigation left a black mark on the tenure of two-term treasurer Joe Malone, who served from 1991 to 1999, and under whom the thefts occurred.

    The attorney general’s office litigated the case.

    Hanover Insurance responded to the ruling with a statement. “We received the court’s ruling earlier today. We are viewing that ruling and considering our options. We will communicate with the state as decisions are made,” the company said.

  • August 14, 2009 at 10:23 am
    GMAB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    of EXCELLENCE….

    Yet another fine example of top notch journalism. Regardless of whether they merely copied and pasted the Associated Press article — You would think a little leg work on their part to inject some relevant information so readers weren’t left hanging would be a no brainer….

    Of course, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion would we…

    Does anyone at IJ read these posts? Maybe they should… might clean up their act to the point they actually deserve recognition

  • August 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
    Nan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you to everyone at IJ for compiling this information for us! It is very informative and of course there will always be complainers…. thanks again for making this available for us. I get lots of good ideas for my radio show… and I’m preping right now for today’s program. Being in MA, this is a great topic for the day! Thanks Again!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*