CONFIRMED INSURANCE FRAUD ON CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE
CONFIRMED INSURANCE FRAUD ON CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKOn 30 November 2020, New Zealand Police issued the Police File number of 201129/4259, on the insurance fraud, committed by Southern Response and EQC, and subsequent fraud in the Court and extortion (later bank robbery), using false documents.
--------------------
1. On or around 27 August 2012, Arrow International, on behalf of Southern Response, issued a full, detailed assessment report (dated 24 February 2012, revised 27 August 2012) on the earthquake damage on the property, located at 15 Bounty Street, Bryndwr, Christchurch, estimating the total amount of the repair of $228,846.55 ($218,519.55 + $10,127.00).
2. On 11 December 2013, I received a letter from Emma Brown, Southern Response, sending me a computer printout sheet, dated 19 August 2013, for their refusal to settle the insurance claim on the property.
On 5 February 2018, I received an email from Leanne Stewart, Senior Investigator, Office of the Ombudsman, stating, "I have made some enquires of EQC regarding your complaint about access to the name of the person who generated the settlement recommendation dated 12 February 2014," "EQC has confirmed that the names of the EQC staff members who had completed assessment reports following onsite scoping visits at the property have been disclosed to you."
On 2 December 2013, I called Emma Brown, Southern Response, regarding the insurance claim, and she talked about alleged paper-based assessment on the claim by EQC. This was more than more than 3 months prior to 12 February 2014 when the settlement recommendation was supposedly generated by EQC. This conversation was recorded.
On 13 February 2014, I received a phone call from EQC in Dunedin, and staff at EQC did not mention any onsite scoping visits by EQC on the property in Christchurch. This conversation was recorded.
3. On 11 August 2014, I received "Response by defendant," dated 22 May 2014, stating, "On 26 August 2013, EQC sent the defendant a batch of reassessed claims which included a file note relating to the plaintiffs' claim," "EQC had completed a further, paper-based, review of the damage to the House on 29 March 2012...(Second EQC Assessment)," during the District Court proceeding (CIV-2014-012-186).
4. On 16 December 2014, I received an email from Sacha Thom, Solicitor, representing Southern Response, stating, "...Southern Response provide copies of:
1. The communication between Southern Response and EQC on 26 August 2013.
2. EQC’s second assessment completed on 29 March 2012.
We attach three documents and note that:
· On 26 August 2013, EQC physically handed to Southern Response these three documents as part of a weekly collection of a batch of documents relating to various claims.
· The first attachment is addressed to Southern Response employee Kate Legg because she was the person at Southern Response who requested the documents from EQC in relation to your claim.
· Southern Response understands that EQC inserted Southern Response’s logo at the top of the document in order to identify which insurer the document needed to be provided to.
· The attached scope of works is the only document relating to EQC’s amended assessment that was provided to Southern Response.
--------------------
The facts above clearly establish that Southern Response and EQC committed insurance fraud.
(1) There was NO onsite scoping visits by EQC at the property in Christchurch for the settlement recommendation, dated 12 February 2014, as alleged by EQC, as I was in Dunedin on that day. Furthermore, on 13 February 2014, I actually received a phone call in Dunedin from EQC staff and there was NO mention of the onsite visit in Christchurch on 12 February 2014, a day before.
(2) Southern Response repeatedly stated that the EQC assessment on the property was paper-based (NOT onsite scoping visit as alleged by EQC), and the date of the computer printout was 19 August 2013, which was about 6 months earlier than 12 February 2014 on which the settlement recommendation was supposedly generated by EQC.
(3) EQC cannot provide the name of the staff who did the alleged assessment, dated 12 February 2014.
(4) There is NO evidence that EQC actually conducted any assessment on the property on 29 March 2012; since in or around August 2011, about 7 months prior to March 2011, the handling of the claim was shifted from EQC to AMI Insurance after EQC settled the claim by paying the maximum liability of EQC under the Earthquake Commission Act1993 and was no longer handling the claim on that day.
(5) The full, detailed assessment report, professionally done by Arrow International, on behalf of Southern Response (dated 24 February 2012, revised 27 August 2012), unequivocally establishes the total damage of $228,846.55.
(6) The computer printout sheet, dated 19 August 2013, is a false, forged document which was used for the insurance fraud, committed by Southern Response.
Clearly, the evidence establishes the insurance fraud, committed by Southern Response and EQC.