Posted on 09/26/2020 5:05:47 AM PDT by MtnClimber
On Thursday, in his continued effort to get his case dismissed, Michael Flynn filed a third brief supporting the original dismissal claim. This made waves because it included texts between FBI analysts in which they admitted that they knew the investigation against Michael Flynn was unfounded and driven by partisan animus. The text messages might have revealed more than that: One texter confessed that those involved bought professional liability insurance after becoming afraid that news might leak about their conduct. They might have committed insurance fraud if they didn’t let the insurance companies know they had already committed wrongful acts.
There are multiple types of insurance fraud. Most people are familiar with cases in which people committed arson against their property or even murdered someone to collect insurance.
Another form of insurance fraud takes place at the time of purchase. Insurance exists to cover against possible future incidents. A person cannot buy insurance to cover a known past incident. That’s not insurance; that’s just cost-shifting. If someone knowingly and intentionally “forgets” to tell the insurance company about an existing claim, and then seeks to recover on it, that’s an actionable fraud. Indeed, it’s a two-tiered fraud because there’s fraud in both the purchase and the claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Because it’s an election year and it would be unwise to go against the senates hand picked director.
Yup, “I was just following orders” defense because my benefits are too good to forgo.
“Why is Christopher Wray still Director?”
President Trump nominated him and the GOP Senate approved the appointment. Since his appointment President Trump has not fired him, he has not been impeached by the House of Representatives, he has not died in office, and he has not voluntarily resigned. Hence, he continues to serve in the office to which he was appointed.
I can only answer your question under NY Insurance law. The simple response is that "It depends." Under NY law, a misrepresentation may void the insurance contract if it is material -- that is the misrepresentation is to such a degree that the insurer would not have issued the policy if it had known the true facts. Although an "intentional" misrepresentation of a material fact is required to void certain types of polices, for professional malpractice polices, intent is irrelevant.
With that said, a failure to disclose (as opposed to an affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact) will not void the insurance contract. In other words, the insured has no duty to disclose unless asked during the application process.
Also, most professional liability insurance contracts only cover losses attributable to negligence and will not cover intentional acts that are unlawful (although the insurer may still need to defend under a reservation of rights until a court determines whether the claim is covered under the policy).
Lastly, most professional liability insurance contracts only cover claims made by the professional's client or patient -- as opposed to third-parties. In other words, the policy only covers claims asserted by a person to whom the professional owes a duty of care, and in the legal profession, an attorney only owes a duty of care to his or her client.
If you get a 15-year term life insurance policy on a person who doesn't exist, you haven't defrauded anyone if the 15 years pass and you never filed a claim. It's actually the exact opposite -- where you've screwed yourself by paying insurance premiums for 15 years and never got a dime out of it.
In most types of insurance sold...if you did something which might lead to a future claim when you were buying the insurance...then it won’t click in and pay the cost. An audit guy will come by and ask questions...then your scheme falls apart.
These government guys are royally screwed. I’d walk in, tell them everything they want and point out the bosses responsible and just hope I dump enough to save my own skin.
Does the applicant know of any circumstance, act, error or omission that might form the basis of a claim against the applicant?
Yes ___ No ___
If you know of such a circumstance, act, error or omission, please complete attached Claim Supplement. Please, include details of any threat of a claim even if you feel it is unjustified or frivolous. If you have notified another insurance company of any such circumstance, act, error or omission, please provide a copy of that notice.
I think that all the people that rushed out to purchase insurance is tantamount to an admission that they knew they were engaged in wrongdoing.
“buying the insurance is not fraud.”
If the incident occurred pre-purchase, and the insured was aware, how could it NOT be fraud?
Incorrect. Under the laws of most states, the insurer can only void the insurance contract if the insured made a material misrepresentation during the application process, which would have resulted in the insurer denying coverage if it had known the truth. Nondisclosure of a material fact, however, will not void the insurance contract unless the insured was specifically asked to disclose the information.
I am not associated with the insurance industry in any way and so can only offer unreliable opinions."
I've been an insurance fraud investigator for 20 years. IMHO, the author has a point, but it's a tenuous one. Much of it would depend on the questions on the policy application and the responses provided. I'm not sure, as the title suggests, it would constitute an admission of insurance fraud.
Application fraud aka Premium Fraud is very real. The policy purchaser is making deliberate misrepresentations during the policy purchase in order to keep their premiums low. A common example would be a driver with multiple accidents or DUIs denying such on an auto policy application. A common one I have seen with worker's compensation policies is a tree trimming company (high risk) misrepresenting itself as a landscaping service (relatively low risk). In both cases, even though no claim has been filed, the insurance company is still being ripped off because they are providing coverage for a high(er) risk, while only collecting premiums for a low(er) risk.
If you had a fender bender in May and got a dent in your front quarter panel and have been driving around with it for months, there would be nothing illegal about going online or into an insurance agency on October 1st and buying a policy for your car. What would be illegal would be, either making a declaration on the policy application that the vehicle was undamaged (knowing and deliberate misrepresentation on the application) or, filing a claim and stating the damage occurred on October 2nd (knowingly falsifying the circumstances of the loss) once coverage for the policy was in force.
If the parties in the Flynn action committed misconduct, and then bought professional liability insurance afterwards, that in, and of itself would not be fraudulent. If the policy application had specific questions about past incidents that they knowingly denied, or if a claim should arise, and they misrepresented the date of the misconduct to fall within the coverage period, then that would be fraud.
Above and beyond that, most policies will exclude intentional acts. You can't take a key to your car and scratch the hell out of it, and then file a vandalism claim hoping to get a new paint job. If it could be established that the professional liability issues in handling the Flynn case were deliberate and intentional, I doubt most carriers would cover the claim, even though they may not aggressively pursue it as fraud. In proving the intentionality of the act, the insurance company would generally be held to the same standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) as in any civil trial. They would not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was deliberate, only that it was more likely than not, for the claim to be denied.
Well, they talked amongst themselves about it.
Find written policies should be easy.
Complicating their life will be how truthful were they to the broker
I doubt any fraud here. These insurance companies have been in business for years, they’ve seen it all. Im quite sure the issue isn’t insurance fraud, but rather complete stupidity of FBI folks to hold an expectation they would have coverage.
There has been every indication of the level of ignorance, arrogance and bad faith with all of the FBI folks Ive read about lately.
Thank you so much. That makes sense.
That’s interesting. Thanks.
Wondering about the phrase in your post: “If it could be established that the professional liability issues in handling the Flynn case were deliberate and intentional, I doubt most carriers would cover the claim,”
If the people who bought the insurance did “deliberate and intentional” acts reluctantly only because they were ordered to by superiors and other TPTB, (under duress) ... how do you think that would be handled?
Excellent summary of the applicable law. Looks like we are on the same page — and I don’t mean Lisa.
But wait! They may be able to when the taxpayer pays the exorbitant costs! Prolly through Lloyds of London, who seem to insure most anything when the price is right.
“Impeach judge Emmet (disgusting little insect) Sullivan.”
The release of these latest texts may be too much for Sullivan to bear in keeping Flynn under the judicial-thumb.
I predict a quiet dismissal is now very likely.
"A person cannot buy insurance to cover a known past incident. That’s not insurance; that’s just cost-shifting. If someone knowingly and intentionally “forgets” to tell the insurance company about an existing claim, and then seeks to recover on it, that’s an actionable fraud. Indeed, it’s a two-tiered fraud because there’s fraud in both the purchase and the claim." in the health industry, that'd be called an existing illness... but it's the same thing.
Judge Sullivan is just dragging his feet. Prosecution has disappeared. It’s a matter of when, not if.
Wray is gone before Thanksgiving.
Nobody will be indicted for all of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.