Absolutely sounds like fraud! The plaintiffs can collect under their policy on the UM coverage, though it may not be adequate. This is a really sad case and the Wilcox’s sound like a bunch of deadbeats.
The article stated: “Acadia issued a $2 million umbrella policy and a $1 million automobile policy from Sept. 1, 2004 to Sept. 1, 2005, but American Crushing owner David Wilcox’s wife canceled the company’s auto policy on 12 of its dump trucks before the fatal crash and received $39,976 refund credit from Acadia, according to the ruling.”
Note that the article didn’t specifically say when the policy was canceled nor did it say that the truck involved in the accident wasn’t covered. In fact, the article states that “coverage was canceled on 12 of the trucks.” To me one could assume or infer that there were other trucks and they may or may not have been covered.
I see your point, Advisor, but consider this as well: if the truck in the accident already had some coverage at the time of the accident, why would Mrs. Wilcox attempt to reinstate coverage mere hours AFTER the crash?
I can hear the conversation now:
Mr. W: Honey, where’s the policy papers for the trucks?
Mrs. W: Oh, I canceled that a couple of months back; it was too expensive and nothing ever happens with our trucks, anyway! And we got us a nice little refund, too! Used it to spruce up the office and put some plants out front.
Mr. W: I just got a call from the highway patrol. Number 12 just plowed into a bunch of cars at the bottom of that Avalon mountain road, and killed some folks!
Why did they try to reinstate coverage if some (or all) coverage was already in place? Good question. I don’t know the answer but I could probably come up with a few plausible responses. For example, maybe the story is wrong and they weren’t trying to reinstate coverage.
What I do know is that the media often only reports part of the story, and quite often it’s the part that sensationalizes the story and helps garner higher ratings (ratings = money). I also know that more often than not once the story is released people automatically jump to what they perceive to be the only answer, without regard for the lack of all the facts.
Finally, I do know the court has ruled that the case can continue and that tells me something doesn’t add up. I was merely trying to hypothesize why the court might rule that way.
I used to drive past AC&R every day for ten years, and have driven down Avon Mtn many times. I left Connecticut 3 years ago and, after reading the Supreme Court’s ruling, am glad I don’t live there any more. My suggestion to AC&R is that they find other insurance companies that they didn’t have policies with and sue them as well. Maybe they could give class action status and they could sue them all.
How in the world can sane business people read this kind of nonsense and wonder why insurance companies don’t want to write in certain jurisdictions? How can the politicians wonder why businesses are leaving the state in DROVES? How can businesses be surprised that premiums are high when companies have to defend against this?
At the same time, I think it should be required reading for all CSRs to review what has happened here. We need to understand the importance of through, timely, consistent documentation. Think of what the power of having a voicemail from this woman canceling the policy in January 05 would have.
As I understand it, ACR&R sent the request for the reinstatement via fax, so there is a date and time stamp record to prove the fraud. How the SC would think there is cause to keep this going is unfathomable to me.
I agree about seeing more facts. September in Connecticut may be the time of year when frost starts to become a factor and concrete pouring slows down. If you have 50 trucks, you might take a dozen out of service until spring and cancel policies. That doesn’t mean the truck involved was uninsured.
The only problem with that line of reasoning, emumbert1, is the fact (reported here as well as the local TV news in Conn) that Mrs. W rushed to try and reinstate (meaning, no coverage was in place) the policy, likely at her husband’s direction. It’s also quite possible that the one insurance policy covered all the trucks in their fleet…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Absolutely sounds like fraud! The plaintiffs can collect under their policy on the UM coverage, though it may not be adequate. This is a really sad case and the Wilcox’s sound like a bunch of deadbeats.
The article stated: “Acadia issued a $2 million umbrella policy and a $1 million automobile policy from Sept. 1, 2004 to Sept. 1, 2005, but American Crushing owner David Wilcox’s wife canceled the company’s auto policy on 12 of its dump trucks before the fatal crash and received $39,976 refund credit from Acadia, according to the ruling.”
Note that the article didn’t specifically say when the policy was canceled nor did it say that the truck involved in the accident wasn’t covered. In fact, the article states that “coverage was canceled on 12 of the trucks.” To me one could assume or infer that there were other trucks and they may or may not have been covered.
As I said before, we don’t have all the facts.
I’m not trying to say the insureds in this case are innocent. It certainly doesn’t look like they’re the “bestest clients ever”!
I’m only trying to say why I can see the court might be allowing their lawsuit to go through as originally submitted. .
I see your point, Advisor, but consider this as well: if the truck in the accident already had some coverage at the time of the accident, why would Mrs. Wilcox attempt to reinstate coverage mere hours AFTER the crash?
I can hear the conversation now:
Mr. W: Honey, where’s the policy papers for the trucks?
Mrs. W: Oh, I canceled that a couple of months back; it was too expensive and nothing ever happens with our trucks, anyway! And we got us a nice little refund, too! Used it to spruce up the office and put some plants out front.
Mr. W: I just got a call from the highway patrol. Number 12 just plowed into a bunch of cars at the bottom of that Avalon mountain road, and killed some folks!
Mrs. W: Oh, #$&^!
…I’m just sayin’…
Why did they try to reinstate coverage if some (or all) coverage was already in place? Good question. I don’t know the answer but I could probably come up with a few plausible responses. For example, maybe the story is wrong and they weren’t trying to reinstate coverage.
What I do know is that the media often only reports part of the story, and quite often it’s the part that sensationalizes the story and helps garner higher ratings (ratings = money). I also know that more often than not once the story is released people automatically jump to what they perceive to be the only answer, without regard for the lack of all the facts.
Finally, I do know the court has ruled that the case can continue and that tells me something doesn’t add up. I was merely trying to hypothesize why the court might rule that way.
Of course, it doesn’t help when all we can get out of the IJ is bits and pieces at a time, and even THAT’S not always accurate!!
Have a happy Thanksgiving, everybody!
I used to drive past AC&R every day for ten years, and have driven down Avon Mtn many times. I left Connecticut 3 years ago and, after reading the Supreme Court’s ruling, am glad I don’t live there any more. My suggestion to AC&R is that they find other insurance companies that they didn’t have policies with and sue them as well. Maybe they could give class action status and they could sue them all.
How in the world can sane business people read this kind of nonsense and wonder why insurance companies don’t want to write in certain jurisdictions? How can the politicians wonder why businesses are leaving the state in DROVES? How can businesses be surprised that premiums are high when companies have to defend against this?
At the same time, I think it should be required reading for all CSRs to review what has happened here. We need to understand the importance of through, timely, consistent documentation. Think of what the power of having a voicemail from this woman canceling the policy in January 05 would have.
As I understand it, ACR&R sent the request for the reinstatement via fax, so there is a date and time stamp record to prove the fraud. How the SC would think there is cause to keep this going is unfathomable to me.
Throw out common sense- spread the wealth.
I agree about seeing more facts. September in Connecticut may be the time of year when frost starts to become a factor and concrete pouring slows down. If you have 50 trucks, you might take a dozen out of service until spring and cancel policies. That doesn’t mean the truck involved was uninsured.
Thanks,
Emumbert1
The only problem with that line of reasoning, emumbert1, is the fact (reported here as well as the local TV news in Conn) that Mrs. W rushed to try and reinstate (meaning, no coverage was in place) the policy, likely at her husband’s direction. It’s also quite possible that the one insurance policy covered all the trucks in their fleet…