Re: Cases like this can have an affect on us

November 26, 2005

I read the fraud article from Texas. Nowhere does it say that the

plantiff's claims of bad faith against State Farm were not justified. What is

looks

like is the plantiff got a bit greedy on the additional expenses she incurred,

ie...padded the tab.

This one looks like a very good lesson for mold victims to follow. If you

are going through litigation, keep a clear documentation of all your expenses.

Be absolutely truthful and well documented in all your claims. I know of

more than one case where it was not a matter of was the plaintiff harmed by

mold, it was a matter of the plaintiff's actions while addressing a mold

lawsuit. Missed deadlines, inconsistancy in answers, throwing together

numbers,

hiding " skeleton closet " info from their attorneys, etc.

If you read between the lines in this story, it would appear there was

negligence on the part of the insurer and mold was a problem. Where the

plantiff

screwed up was by trying to take advantage of the situation. No matter how

badly you have been treated, no matter how much you feel that they owe you,

DON " T DO WHAT THIS PERSON DID.

Sharon Kramer

Texas Court Awards State Farm $221,000 On Fraud Counterclaims

by Publishing

HOUSTON â€” A federal judge ordered a State Farm Lloyds policyholder

to repay more than $80,000 in alternative living expenses and

$141,000 in attorneys fees and costs after the carrier proved that

the policyholder committed fraud in connection with a mold damage

claim. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. H-04-0352 (S.D. Texas).

Maureen sued State Farm Lloyds for breach of contract, bad

faith and violation of the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade

Practices Act, alleging that State Farm Lloyds failed to properly

investigate mold and water damage claims and refused to properly

fund repairs to her Houston home.

State Farm Lloyds moved the case from state court to the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Texas in January 2004.

said in an amended complaint that she reported seven

instances of water intrusion or leaks from an air conditioner and

water heater between Jan. 2, 2002, and Aug. 14, 2003. She also

asserted in her complaint that State Farm denied a 1999 claim for

damage from an overflow in an air conditioner pan, which resulted in

mold damage.

filed suit after State Farm Lloyds denied a 2004 claim for

mold and water damage related to an overflowing French drain.

complained that State Farm hired an engineering firm known

for bias toward insurance companies, and that the carrier's failure

to pay for adequate remediation caused to suffer permanent

injuries and incur $100,000 in medical expenses.

State Farm filed a counterclaim and affirmative defenses on March

31, alleging that was guilty of fraud in claiming additional

living expenses for herself and her mother, Henrietta White.

State Farm paid a total of $126,680 between April 2002 and

April 2004 based, in part, on documents provided showing a

monthly rental fee of $4,500 to 'Triangle Trust.'

failed to appear for a June 21 hearing on pending motions and

on June 27 her attorney notified the court that documents submitted

by and White in support of 's attorney informed the

court on June 27 that various documents submitted to the court by

and her mother were false.

Counsel also informed the court that was withdrawing all

claims against State Farm Lloyds. State Farm decided to pursue its

counterclaim.

filed a pro se bankruptcy petition on July 7, which

temporarily halted proceedings in the civil action. The bankruptcy

court granted State Farm's motion for relief from the automatic stay

on Aug. 11, and on Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal

issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in State Farm's favor.

Relying on deposition testimony, filings from 's two

bankruptcy proceedings, and drawing adverse conclusions from

's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights during an earlier

hearing, Judge Rosenthal concluded that had submitted

fraudulent lease documents and that her actions voided the insurance

contract.

Judge Rosenthal also concluded that 's bad faith and statutory

claims against State Farm Lloyds were brought in bad faith.

Judge Rosenthal concluded that 'Triangle Trust' was actually a trust

created in 2000 by 's mother for estate planning purposes, and

that the house rented for $4,500 was actually purchased by

and her mother and was the security for a monthly mortgage of

$1,156.90.

The judge also noted that while represented to State Farm

that the replacement value of her personal property was $341,759 and

she owned original paintings by Renoir, Rembrandt and Picasso, she

stated in bankruptcy proceedings that she owned collectibles worth

$2,500 and personal property valued at $1,300.

Judge Rosenthal also noted discrepancies in lost business income

reported to State Farm and her representation to the bankruptcy

court in 2001 that she had no income from self-operated businesses.

Judge Rosenthal ruled that State Farm was entitled to recover from

the difference between the actual mortgage payments made by

and the payments made by State Farm, or $80,234.40, and

attorneys fees and costs to State Farm for the cost of defending her

bad faith claim and prosecuting its counterclaim.

The judge issued a separate order on Nov. 16 ordering to pay

State Farm Lloyds $129,150 in fees and $12,281.34 in costs.

F. Jr. and P. of Houston represented

.

State Farm Lloyds was represented by W. , Deborah

E. Rank and Holly W. Kowis of Disiere in Houston.

For More Information on this article, please click on the links

below:

Related Document: Findings of Fact - MOL-0511-06 (PDF format)

Related Document: Order - MOL-0511-07 (PDF format)

Related Document: Complaint - MOL-0511-08 (PDF format)

November 26, 2005

There are big PR organizations that are paid (and PAY people) to do stuff

like this, you know.

I am sure that they even post to lists like this. " trolling "

They also specialize in greenwashing.. as its called.. and they attack

credible spokespeople for any cause as well.. personally..

Whenever there are millions of dollars riding on a cause, you can bet that

people will use every possible way to fight dirty.

Read " Toxic Sludge is Good For You " (the book) - its a good overview of how

these PR organizations and their fake 'grassroots groups' operate..

Its like an ugly parody of real activists.. but on the wrong side..

Dont laugh at the title.. The 'biosolids' people are actually trying to make

it legal to spread this heavy-metal laden

S**T on land and still call the food grown there ORGANIC..

Thats how far they have gotten under the current administration..

Be afraid, be very afraid.. these people have lots of money and they are not

your friends..

> wrote:

>

> I have come across several situations such as this within the last

> 10 years. Not knowing all the facts makes it that much more

> difficult to comment on what had actually taken place.

>

> I have dealt with several individuals that have filed mold claims,

> medical claims and the affects that it has on them/family, I'm not

> speaking of this individual case here. Where the facts did not add

> up, their story was all over the road, questionable at best. Also,

> the effects of these toxins they said they were experiencing, they

> could only speak in very general terms. An example of this; One

> person I knew moved into an apartment, all their belongings in

> sealed plastic containers and after 15 minutes complained that they

> were sick from mold and that all their belongings were contaminated.

> This was not a " hit " like many of us experience, this was their

> FIRST encounter. They filed suit for damages, needless to say they

> lost, but they now consider themselves a " mold

> victim/survivor/expert " and advise others on the effects of mold.

> Nice huh? It's situtations like this that give all true victims a

> bad name and when I come across fradulant claims, if there is

> someone I can contact I will turn them in. This in the long run

> hurts all of us.

>

> Sorry to say, in this world there are always some that are out to

> make an easy buck or looking for that big payoff and it will always

> catch up with them. I think this is the difference between them and

> us, many of us are just trying to recover what we have lost and to

> regain our health. There really is no dollar amount that could

> replace the life you have lost.

>

> KC

>

> Texas Court Awards State Farm $221,000 On Fraud Counterclaims

> by Publishing

>

> HOUSTON — A federal judge ordered a State Farm Lloyds policyholder

> to repay more than $80,000 in alternative living expenses and

> $141,000 in attorneys fees and costs after the carrier proved that

> the policyholder committed fraud in connection with a mold damage

> claim. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. H-04-0352 (S.D. Texas).

>

> Maureen sued State Farm Lloyds for breach of contract, bad

> faith and violation of the Texas Insurance Code and Deceptive Trade

> Practices Act, alleging that State Farm Lloyds failed to properly

> investigate mold and water damage claims and refused to properly

> fund repairs to her Houston home.

>

> State Farm Lloyds moved the case from state court to the U.S.

> District Court for the Southern District of Texas in January 2004.

>

> said in an amended complaint that she reported seven

> instances of water intrusion or leaks from an air conditioner and

> water heater between Jan. 2, 2002, and Aug. 14, 2003. She also

> asserted in her complaint that State Farm denied a 1999 claim for

> damage from an overflow in an air conditioner pan, which resulted in

> mold damage.

>

> filed suit after State Farm Lloyds denied a 2004 claim for

> mold and water damage related to an overflowing French drain.

>

> complained that State Farm hired an engineering firm known

> for bias toward insurance companies, and that the carrier's failure

> to pay for adequate remediation caused to suffer permanent

> injuries and incur $100,000 in medical expenses.

>

> State Farm filed a counterclaim and affirmative defenses on March

> 31, alleging that was guilty of fraud in claiming additional

> living expenses for herself and her mother, Henrietta White.

>

> State Farm paid a total of $126,680 between April 2002 and

> April 2004 based, in part, on documents provided showing a

> monthly rental fee of $4,500 to 'Triangle Trust.'

>

> failed to appear for a June 21 hearing on pending motions and

> on June 27 her attorney notified the court that documents submitted

> by and White in support of 's attorney informed the

> court on June 27 that various documents submitted to the court by

> and her mother were false.

>

> Counsel also informed the court that was withdrawing all

> claims against State Farm Lloyds. State Farm decided to pursue its

> counterclaim.

>

> filed a pro se bankruptcy petition on July 7, which

> temporarily halted proceedings in the civil action. The bankruptcy

> court granted State Farm's motion for relief from the automatic stay

> on Aug. 11, and on Oct. 13, U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal

> issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in State Farm's favor.

>

> Relying on deposition testimony, filings from 's two

> bankruptcy proceedings, and drawing adverse conclusions from

> 's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights during an earlier

> hearing, Judge Rosenthal concluded that had submitted

> fraudulent lease documents and that her actions voided the insurance

> contract.

>

> Judge Rosenthal also concluded that 's bad faith and statutory

> claims against State Farm Lloyds were brought in bad faith.

>

> Judge Rosenthal concluded that 'Triangle Trust' was actually a trust

> created in 2000 by 's mother for estate planning purposes, and

> that the house rented for $4,500 was actually purchased by

> and her mother and was the security for a monthly mortgage of

> $1,156.90.

>

> The judge also noted that while represented to State Farm

> that the replacement value of her personal property was $341,759 and

> she owned original paintings by Renoir, Rembrandt and Picasso, she

> stated in bankruptcy proceedings that she owned collectibles worth

> $2,500 and personal property valued at $1,300.

>

> Judge Rosenthal also noted discrepancies in lost business income

> reported to State Farm and her representation to the bankruptcy

> court in 2001 that she had no income from self-operated businesses.

>

> Judge Rosenthal ruled that State Farm was entitled to recover from

> the difference between the actual mortgage payments made by

> and the payments made by State Farm, or $80,234.40, and

> attorneys fees and costs to State Farm for the cost of defending her

> bad faith claim and prosecuting its counterclaim.

>

> The judge issued a separate order on Nov. 16 ordering to pay

> State Farm Lloyds $129,150 in fees and $12,281.34 in costs.

>

> F. Jr. and P. of Houston represented

> .

>

> State Farm Lloyds was represented by W. , Deborah

> E. Rank and Holly W. Kowis of Disiere in Houston.

>

> For More Information on this article, please click on the links

> below:

> Related Document: Findings of Fact - MOL-0511-06 (PDF format)

> Related Document: Order - MOL-0511-07 (PDF format)

> Related Document: Complaint - MOL-0511-08 (PDF format)

>

> # # #

>

> Pure Air Control Services, Inc.

>

> 1-800-422-7873

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

November 26, 2005

" tigerpaw2c " < wrote:

An example of this; One person I knew moved into an apartment, all

their belongings in sealed plastic containers and after 15 minutes

complained that they were sick from mold and that all their

belongings were contaminated.

> This was not a " hit " like many of us experience, this was their

> FIRST encounter.

" Intensification Reaction " .

I would say that this DOES indeed qualify as a " mold hit " and is

completely consistent with the increased reactivity that so many of

us perceive AFTER we evacuate a moldy building.

There are an overwhelming number of stories in the old messages

about mold victims who were completely unaware of the source

irritant until they LEFT - and only then did they become

hyperacutely reactive.

This is a compelling reason why it is counterproductive to refer to

mold illness as an 'allergy'. The " allergic " conceptual model

suggests to doubters that " Your response is IMPOSSIBLE, because at

the very least, you decreased you antigenic exposure dramatically,

and yet your COMPLAINTS have increased " .

It is important to understand the toxic " intensification reaction "

in order to make sense of sufferers descriptions of these types of

mold hits.

-

November 26, 2005

,

I agree. A 15 min. exposure for many of us here would be a severe

disabling hit. The case that I am speaking of is from that of an

initial exposure with no prior exposure or conditions from toxins.

They only experienced a minor " allergy " affect, nothing serious or

long lasting health affects. Not to mention their story kept

changing each time they told it. They were feeding off of other

victims stories and their story would then grow over the years. This

was just when the media really started paying attention. They could

not be specific about any thing.

There have also been reports of individuals actually pulling a hose

into their home and flooding it. So they can file a claim. These are

the types of cases I am talking about. Not the real ones out there

who are getting shafted by insurance companies, employers,

landlords,etc., over many years of water intrusion or flooding that

has occured of which you had not control.

> An example of this; One person I knew moved into an apartment,

all

> their belongings in sealed plastic containers and after 15 minutes

> complained that they were sick from mold and that all their

> belongings were contaminated.

> > This was not a " hit " like many of us experience, this was their

> > FIRST encounter.

>

> " Intensification Reaction " .

> I would say that this DOES indeed qualify as a " mold hit " and is

> completely consistent with the increased reactivity that so many

of

> us perceive AFTER we evacuate a moldy building.

> There are an overwhelming number of stories in the old messages

> about mold victims who were completely unaware of the source

> irritant until they LEFT - and only then did they become

> hyperacutely reactive.

> This is a compelling reason why it is counterproductive to refer

to

> mold illness as an 'allergy'. The " allergic " conceptual model

> suggests to doubters that " Your response is IMPOSSIBLE, because at

> the very least, you decreased you antigenic exposure dramatically,

> and yet your COMPLAINTS have increased " .

> It is important to understand the toxic " intensification reaction "

> in order to make sense of sufferers descriptions of these types of

> mold hits.

> -

>

November 26, 2005

" tigerpaw2c " < wrote:

>

> ,

> I agree. A 15 min. exposure for many of us here would be a severe

> disabling hit. The case that I am speaking of is from that of an

> initial exposure with no prior exposure or conditions from toxins.

> They only experienced a minor " allergy " affect, nothing serious or

> long lasting health affects.

We need a " real time " medical test for activation of innate immune

response so that a serious and debilitating cytokine release can be

substantiated and proven beyond doubt.

This would separate any " mold hystericalists " or opportunists

from " Mold Reality Hell victims " .

But you reminded me of my brothers denigrating assessment of

my " changing story " .

In '98 when I finally had enough of being kicked around and adopted

an 'extreme avoidance' strategy, I gave my shop tools to my brother

and warned him that they should be kept out in the sun for a few

days to kill off viable spores and minimize the possibility that

they might colonize HIS house. And I warned him that the toxins on

these tools might be troublesome and cannot be washed off, but must

die down over time.

Amazingly, he said, " So you are telling me that mold can grow inside

of solid steel? " . " No " I replied, " The toxins that are released

from these spores has demonstrated itself to me in testing as a

substance that cannot be washed off easily, as one might think " .

I made several attempts to explain, but years later I find that the

information never " took " . Recently, I was talking about the

validation of the " crazy mold concept " that I've enjoyed after so

many years of contradiction and obstinate denial and he said " You

weren't right about everything. Your crazy idea that mold can grow

inside of solid steel was completely wrong "

This was not anything I ever claimed and yet I have no means to

pursuade him that this is not what I said. I even asked him " Why on

Earth would I describe to YOU that " mold can grow inside steel " when

at the same time I was writing in various places that the trouble is

that low molecular weight toxins can adsorb even upon " smooth "

surfaces by Van der Waal's forces? "

He said " I don't know. You tell ME why you would say such a stupid

thing " .

Over the years, I have encountered almost NOTHING but endless

attempts to twist my " unbelievable " assertions beyond recognition in

a very concerted effort to undermine whatever shred of credibility

that a concept might have, and after watching this ferocious

denialism slammed down upon others who are going through " the mold

experience " , I tend to look upon changeable stories with a bit less

skepticism and tend to give sufferers " the benefit of the doubt " .

Interviewers will do everything they possible can to make mold

complaints appear inconsistent and impossible - so it's sometimes

difficult to get a sense of coherence from mold victims until they

are given enough time to lay out their clarifications and overcome

this interference from denialists.

But I can sure see what you are saying about these " mold

opportunists " !

I don't see any way to stop certain people from being " the way

people are " until we have a test that can prove this violent immune

response beyond any reasonable doubt.

-

November 26, 2005

:

Very nicely illustrated in your story. Even people who tend to by sympathetic

can 'hear' what they think we are saying when we are saying something entirely

different.

KC - you and others have mentioned Dr. Kilburn repeatedly. We had a wonderful

initial contact with her when my neighbor first died and his mother and I were

trying to make sense of it. Dr. Kilburn very generously offered to look at the

autopsy report, which we sent when we received it a month or two later. Tom

(36) died a year ago this week (11/20) and on 11/24, the report indicates that

they ascertained he died from Arterio-Scloratic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD).

HOWEVER, they didn't begin the actual autopsy until 11/27 - aparently, the

kindly folks in the LA County Coroner's office are psychic as well as trained in

medicine. They claimed that he had vessels which were 90% occluded, however

they did not make slides of his coronary vessels, so we'll never know if that

was a fabrication or not. They also indicated 'no evidence of mold' on the

report (although they haven't yet answered what tests they did to arrive at this

conclusion).

Dr. Kilburn was persuaded that the coronary problem killed Tom - when I

attempted to describe the symptoms he had had prior to his death and AT his

death (including production of great quantities of foam and blood as well as NO

EVIDENCE of infarction - he died during a seizure, not a heart attack), she

apparently misunderstood what I was saying and wrote back sounding shocked that

I would suggest that mold caused coronary disease in him. No, I actually was

attempting to dispute coronary disease killed him... She clearly thought I was a

crackpot. I wonder if she'll feel differently when we show her the quantity of

trichothecene we now have documented in his lung tissue.

As his mother and I keep saying, we know we are crazy, just not about THIS.

-Haley

erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote: