Travelers Insurance
reviews and complaints

To see the video version, see airofusion.com and click "see current show".

Travelers has been violating the civil rights of an elder homeowner for the past fifteen years. The following is a letter (without its attached 667 pages of 62 Exhibits) we sent to Travelers marked "urgent". Travelers refused to respond.

*****

Travelers insured our home in 2007 under policy no. [protected]. By 2012, Travelers had refused to renew our policy in 2011, promised not to settle an uncovered claim by Jessie (p. 1), and yet settled it without our knowledge or consent and despite our vehement objections. (p. 4) Before it settled, Travelers informed us that any settlement would be illegal and that no “person can be estopped to deny its validity.” (See the case that Travelers cited in Ex. 1, Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 478, at p. 512). Travelers’ illegal settlement forced us to be its involuntary beneficiaries. We refused to sign it. We hereby claim its promissory benefits.

We reply to Travelers’ answer dated 3/4/13 to our consumer complaint to the California Department of Insurance. (p. 16) We demand that Travelers clean up its unconscionable mess. We demand that Travelers pay us an attorney of our choice to fix all problems caused by its illegal settlement, including all damages it is causing to our monetary claim in the liquidation of Jessie’s insurance, United Contractors Insurance Company (UCIC). (p. 24) UCIC’s liquidation is now in its final stages. The Delaware Department of Insurance has given us more time to find an attorney, but the mess is too big for us to handle without addressing Travelers’ responsibilities.

A. Ms. Bernier’s Construction Case.

Ms. Bernier’s eldest son, Jessie, destroyed her home in 2007. (p. 37) Ms. Bernier’s agreement with Jessie was oral. It was not “at arm’s length.” She is now 78 years old. She has been living in an unsafe home since 2007. In 2007, Ms. Bernier sued Jessie (hereinafter the Construction Case). A Presiding Judge was tricked into signing a baseless order on 10/16/07. (p. 79) That’s not even his duty. (C.R.C., Rule 10.603) Jessie is the suspect. On 10/17/07, Jessie told Mr. Kufel of Travelers’ Subrogation Department about the baseless order. (p. 83) Jessie claimed written contracts. (p. 59) Travelers’ document expert opined that the contracts were forgeries. (p. 123) Two separate document experts unanimously concluded the same. (Ex. 8)

Travelers was in contact with UCIC in 2007. (p. 60) Travelers never told Ms. Bernier about UCIC. Travelers never subrogated any part of claim no. UMZ7908 against UCIC. Jessie lodged the baseless order and his forgeries in the Construction Case. Ms. Bernier informed Judge So that the baseless order was unsupported. (p. 134-35) Judge So tried to vacate the unsupported baseless order. (p. 136) Judge Hayes denied Jessie’s abuse of process. (p. 137) Notably, Judge Hayes found the baseless order had been “vacated as unsupported.” Judge Denton found it had been “vacated as unsupported.” (p. 138) The Construction Case trial transcript proves otherwise. The baseless order was final under CA C.C.P. § 391.7, not interim under § 391.1. Judge So’s order to strike was thus ineffective. On 4/14/09, Jessie’s attorney cross-examined Ms. Bernier.

MR. HAINES: “Now, you have been declared by courts in San Diego County a vexatious litigant; isn’t that true?”

MS. BERNIER: “Not true.”

Q. You have never been declared a vexatious litigant in San Diego County?

A. What I say, I have not been declared vexatious in this case…

Q. Ma’am, you have in the past been declared a vexatious litigant; isn’t that true?

A. It’s in a different case, and it has nothing to do with this case, and it’s not something –it’s because I did not post a bond. That’s why…

Q. Now, Ma’am, take a look at Exhibit 32. Do you see that Judge So signed an order on October 16, 2007? Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Declaring you and your son Hans to be vexatious litigants; isn’t that true? True?

A. Not true.

Q. So you understand that you were not declared a vexatious litigant by Judge So as of October 16, 2007?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You do what?

A. I do declare that I was not declared a vexatious litigant on October (sic) 6, 2007.

Q. When were you declared a vexatious litigant?

A. It was in the Millerd, MUE, Universal Enterprises, and it was not October 16, 2007.

Q. Ma’am, I am wanting to know, what date were you declared a vexatious litigant?

A. I don’t’ remember the exact date. It’s in 2000 – around that time, 2000 – I don’t know.

Q. How many lawsuits have you filed in San Diego County in the last 10 years?

MR. KINSEY: Objection, irrelevant.

MR. HAINES: The relevance is that the basis for this lawsuit I can argue is specious because the courts have declared her a vexatious litigant and she does this all time. She has sued people more than 23 times, as far as I know, in the last 10 years, which created the fact that she became a vexatious litigant. [emphasis added].

THE COURT: “Well it’s been established that she is a vexatious litigant, or at least as of October 16, 2007, [she] was.” MR. KINSEY was also mutually mistaken about the effect of the order to strike. He said “There is one [document] I think we may have missed. It’s 157, the order striking vexatious litigant, pre‐filing order.” THE COURT: “I took judicial notice of that.”

As a direct result, the Delaware Deputy Receiver in UCIC’s liquidation finds that Ms. Bernier “failed to prove that any property damages… had not been compensated by Travelers.” (p. 31) The Receiver finds that the damages Jessie caused to her home were “either satisfied by the payments to her from her homeowner’s insurer or was fully adjudicated before Judge Nevitt, with the exception of the water and sewer line damages for Proof of Claim No. 964.01.” (p. 32)

Judge Nevitt failed to determine what happened in the Construction Case. Ms. Bernier did not fail at anything in the Construction Case. Judge Nevitt denied Ms. Bernier’s request for specific findings. (p. 142) She was not “afforded due process in Judge Nevitt’s Courtroom.” Judge So’s order to strike kept her in the dark about the continued effect of the baseless order. Other than the baseless order dated 10/16/07, there is nothing in the record of the Construction Case to provide a meaningful explanation for the failure underlying Judge Nevitt’s judgment.

Extrinsic and collateral fraud appears on the face of the judgment. Explicitly “in light of” the baseless order, the Court failed to determine what happened. (p. 140) A baseless vexatious litigant pre‐filing order can “tread on a litigant’s due process right of [meaningful] access to the courts.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057. (9th Cir. 2007) Judge Nevitt found Ms. Bernier’s experts were ‘more credible’ than the parties. (p. 141) Jessie had no experts.

B. Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case.

Judge Nevitt’s judgment is a Rorschach Test. When combined with the baseless order, it becomes a weapon to tread on Ms. Bernier’s First Amendment right to assemble with counsel and redress her grievances. Attorney Freedman, who pleaded the complaint in the Construction Case, “told the insurance company (as all attorneys are doing) that your mom [Ms. Bernier] is crazy, vexatious... and that she does not deserve 1 penny for any of her claims.” (p. 143) To cover up his malpractice for having failed to tender her defense of Jessie’s cross‐complaint in the Construction Case to Travelers, Freedman concocted a story conflating the baseless order. (Ex. 15) Ms. Bernier took Freedman’s deposition in pro per. Freedman admitted his perjury. (p. 149)

Desperate for real help, Ms. Bernier retained attorney Dearn on a $6,000 a month flat‐fee basis. Jessie contacted Dearn. In an email to us, Dearn agreed to conspire with Travelers, Jessie, attorney Freedman (substituted by Kinsey) et al, to obtain their cooperation and their declarations to designate her vexatious and to require her to post bonds in all of her pending lawsuits. Dearn explicitly admitted that the objective of this breach of fiduciary duty was to dismiss all her cases, not on their merits, and then have her dilapidated property attached upon her death. (p. 150)

Jessie relied on Judge Nevitt’s judgment in support of his subsequent coverage dispute with UCIC. UCIC entered into a settlement agreement in ICS v. UCIC, case number [protected], to waive “indemnity coverage for construction defects for the work performed” at Ms. Bernier’s home in 2007. (p. 153) UCIC also agreed to pay for attorneys to defend Jessie against all of Ms. Bernier’s efforts to redress her grievances stemming from the failed Construction Case. (p. 156)

In May 2011, Jessie sued Ms. Bernier and Hans alleging malicious prosecution of the Construction Case. (p. 158) Jessie tendered our defenses to Travelers. (p. 175) Jessie knew our attorneys would not do so. Jessie wanted money from Travelers. Desperate to ferret out the truth in the Construction Case, we agreed to allow Travelers to defend us, but only upon the strictest of stipulations and advice from its tripartite attorneys that Travelers could not lawfully settle. If we would’ve been warned that Travelers might settle, then we would’ve refused Jessie’s tender.

“The public policy underlying section 533 – to deny coverage for and thereby discourage commission of wilful wrongs – is not implicated when an insurer indemnifies an ‘innocent’ insured held liable for the willful wrong of another person: ‘The public policy against insurance for losses resulting from such [wilful criminal] acts is usually justified by the assumption that such acts would be encouraged, or at least not dissuaded, if insurance were available to shift the financial burden of the loss from the wrongdoer to the insurer... This policy, however, does not apply when the wrongdoer is not benefited and an insured who is innocent of the wrongdoing receives the protection afforded by the contract of insurance.” [emphasis added; Downey, supra, at p. 514]

By September 2012, Ms. Bernier filed bankruptcy. A month later, during her bankruptcy stay and without our knowledge or that of our tripartite attorneys, Travelers negotiated to pay Jessie $325,000 to dismiss his malicious prosecution claims. Upon learning of the settlement, we claimed a conflict with Travelers under Rhodes v. Chicago Ins. Co., 719 F.2d 116, 120. (5th Cir. 1983). We withdrew our previous tenders of defense. (p. 180) We waived the policy. (p. 185)

We released Travelers from all its policy obligations by waiving all policy benefits and by informing Travelers that we would personally finance our own litigation costs by representing ourselves in pro per. Our waiver implied that we would not “seek indemnity from Travelers for any settlement or judgment against her” and that we “would hold Travelers harmless in any direct action Jessie or ICS might pursue against Travelers after obtaining a judgment against her.” Jessie’s malicious prosecution claims were not covered under Hurvitz v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., [protected] Cal.App.4th 918. There was nothing to indemnify.

We attempted to clarify by saying that we were firing Travelers permanently. To the extent that there was any failure on our part to communicate our intentions to Travelers, that failure was caused by Travelers’ earlier representations to us that it would be against the law for Travelers to settle Jessie’s malicious prosecution claims. Travelers never explained how it could be lawful for Jessie or ICS to pursue any malicious prosecution judgment against Travelers.

We did not accept cumis counsel because we did not want Travelers to have any further control over our defenses. We had a conflict with Travelers’ tripartite attorneys because they first advised us that any settlement would be illegal, but then refused to provide any further coverage advice after Travelers negotiated the settlement. (p. 217-19) Travelers instructed said attorneys to refuse to substitute out of our defenses. (p. 193) Travelers shoved its settlement down our throat.

C. The Travelers Case.

We retained attorney Rosen who filed the matter of Bernier et al v. Travelers et al., case no. [protected] (hereinafter “The Travelers Case”; Ex. 23), and claims 964.01 and 964.02 on 3/12/14 in the Delaware matter of the liquidation of UCIC. The Travelers Case was an attempt to 1. Set aside Judge Nevitt’s Construction Case judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, and, 2. Deny the validity of Travelers’ settlement with Jessie and ICS. ICS is his revoked alter ego.

Attorney Rosen notified Travelers that the settlement had been breached. He asked it to enforce its own settlement. (p. 259) Travelers deferred compliance of its settlement to attorney Howe. (p. 262) Attorney Howe advised Travelers to rely on the Hurvitz case. (p. 222) Attorney Rosen filed case no. 2014‐11015 against Jessie for breach of the settlement. (Ex. 27)

Judge Pressman scheduled 5/2/14 for all dispositive motions and denied ex parte requests to address Rosen’s scheduling conflicts. Ms. Bernier asked Judge Pressman if he had read our opposition to Jessie’s Anti‐SLAPP motion. He replied “Not at all. No. This is ‐ it’s very clear to me that the SLAPP motion is well‐taken that this case is one that needs to be dismissed. It meets all the qualifications of a SLAPP statute, so I’m more than satisfied with my tentative.” (p. 276)

In pursuit of her threat (p. 150) to conspire with Jessie and Travelers, Attorney Dearn filed a vexatious litigant motion as supported by a list of 13 lawsuits. Judge Pressman stepped in our case to interfere with our opposition. He issued a vexatious litigant order upon his own list of 19 lawsuits, including small claims and bankruptcies, and two cases filed by other persons also named Bernier, Bernier v. Sitz, 2012‐47774, and Bernier v. Beaulieu, 2014‐16218. (p. 283-84)

Attorney Dearn then passed that torch unto Travelers who moved for a vexatious litigant order based on Dearn’s pre‐filing order. (p. 292) Judge Strauss granted its motion and ordered each of us to deposit $50,000 with the Court or else the Travelers Case would be dismissed with prejudice. That would violate CA C.C.P. § 391.2. The pivotal issue in Judge Strauss’ order is his reliance on Hurvitz to find us unlikely to prevail in the Travelers Case, 2013‐58680. (p. 308) We were denied our rights to appeal Judge Strauss’ dismissal based on the same vexatious findings.

D. Jessie’s Second Malicious Prosecution Case.

On 2/16/17, we were each served with a deposition subpoena in Jessie’s second malicious prosecution case (p. 309-10) against attorney Rosen. (hereinafter the Rosen Case; Ex. 33) From 2/16/17 to 5/12/20, we tried various legal means to respond. Our depositions were the only way to ferret out the truth and to prevent injustice against Rosen. Attorney Howe had requested a restraining order that Hans stay away from Howe’s office. (p. 324) Howe had also been tracking and monitoring us since 2009. (p. 336) No reasonable person would’ve contacted Howe directly. (p. 341) We claimed the promissory benefits of the settlement. Travelers denied it. (p. 345)

“We do not view the present lawsuit as a continuation of the prior lawsuit that we handled under claim number HHN6256 as the current lawsuit is against Mr. Rosen and relates to two separate actions you filed against Jessie and ICS in 2013 and 2014. We have reviewed the settlement agreement and do not see this complaint as a violation of the terms of the settlement agreement, again because the current complaint is against Mr. Rosen and not yourselves.” (Id.)

But for Travelers’ illegal settlement, we would not have retained Rosen to challenge the settlement. In the Rosen Case, Jessie alleged malicious prosecution of the Travelers Case. In the Travelers Case, we denied the validity of the settlement of the Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case. We also sought to set aside Judge Nevitt’s judgment in the Construction Case due to extrinsic fraud. In the Settlement Case [protected], we sought to enforce breaches of the settlement of Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case. Hans attempted to intervene in the Rosen Case. The Court denied Hans for the same reasons Travelers gave us.

“[I]t is clear from Hans’ proposed pleading that he not only wishes to resolve issues related to potential insurance coverage for his deposition in this matter, but he also wishes to relitigate issues between and among he, Jessie, and his mother that were resolved in prior litigation.” (p. 349) “[T]he basis of Hans’ claims against Travelers is that Travelers is required to provide an attorney for Hans’ deposition in this case. However, Hans cites to no language in the Travelers policy that requires the insurer to provide a defense in a case where Hans is not even a defendant.” [emphasis added] (p. 351)

In Ms. Bernier’s bankruptcy, Judge Mann had acknowledged her right to contest the validity of the settlement. (p. 356-57) She appealed that order. Travelers interfered with her appeal by consummating its illegal settlement during the pendency of her appeal, rendering it moot. (p. 360) Judge Deddeh overlooked the promissory benefits of the settlement to “eliminate any monetary damages exposure to Bernier and/or Hans whether or not such exposure is, or could be considered to be covered by the terms of the Travelers insurance policies.” (p. 5)

Because our civil rights are being violated, we filed a federal case against Travelers in the Southern District. The settlement was at issue, not the policy that had expired in 2011. (Ex. 42)

“In [the Rosen Case,] case no. 2015‐38886, Jessie and ICS allege that they successfully sued Bernier and Hans for Malicious Prosecution in prior case no. 2011‐91919 [claim HHN6256]. The filing of case no. 2015‐38886 is in violation of Jessie, ICS, and Howe’s covenant, detailed in the settlement.” (p. 365)

Travelers then filed a vexatious litigant motion based on 17 related lawsuits, including [protected] and [protected]. Travelers’ motion stayed our lawsuit. We opposed. Judge Anello took it under submission for almost four months, permitting the Rosen Case to proceed to trial. Judge Anello then cited the result of his own interference, a $1.4 million judgment in the Rosen Case in Jessie’s favor, as his reason to grant Travelers’ vexatious litigant motion enjoining any further complaint in the Southern District pertaining only to the policy. (p. 408) He ordered a $50,000 bond. When we failed to pay, he dismissed our complaint without prejudice. (p. 410)

Judge Anello disagreed with Judge Strauss that our failure to post $50,000 had resulted in the dismissal of our claims, to deny the validity of the settlement, with prejudice. Otherwise, that order would’ve been in violation of CA C.C.P. § 391.2. (p. 382) Although Judge Anello repeated our pleading that “Travelers did not respond to Plaintiffs’ claim of damages caused by violating case 91919’s settlement” (p. 378) and he did take judicial notice of the settlement (p. 374), he did not consider its promissory benefits or its illegal nature. He found that “Jessie and ICS prayed for relief from Glenn Rosen and the Rosen Law Firm, not Plaintiffs... Thus, no claim was made and no suit was brought against Bernier or Hans for damages arising from case 38886…” (p. 383-84)

We appealed. Without facts, the Ninth Circuit relied on Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056‐57 (9th Cir. 2007) and affirmed because the Travelers policy did not cover our defenses in the Rosen Case 2015‐38886. (p. 413) It too overlooked the settlement.

On 2/15/19, we each filed a motion under CA C.C.P. § 391.8 to be removed from the vexatious litigant list in order to file a civil rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983. (p. 415-18)

Ms. Bernier’s motion was “cancelled” and kicked. Judge Sturgeon denied our requests to file our civil rights case. He found, “the first cause of action is time‐barred, in that it alleges a conspiracy involving Travelers that occurred in 2007.” (p. 421) The transcript in the Construction Case in 2009 establishes that said conspiracy was not limited to 2007. He too overlooked the settlement.

The insurance agent who sold and maintained the Travelers policy to Ms. Bernier had been located in the Central District. So we filed a civil rights lawsuit in the Central District against Travelers under 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201 to declare the settlement void. (p. 423) Travelers answered. (p. 465) But Travelers also filed another vexatious litigant motion.

The magistrate found our declaratory relief claims, to deny the validity of the settlement, had been “on the same subject” as the Construction Case. (p. 511) He recommended that our complaint be dismissed due to the amount of cases we’ve endured, which “suggests” we have a “vendetta” against Travelers and Jessie. He found our claims “border on delusional.” (p. 510)

The de novo review was meaningless. (p. 516-17) The Judge ordered a $50,000 bond. We failed to pay. He dismissed our lawsuit without prejudice. (p. 519) They too overlooked the settlement.

Pursuant to Insurance Code § 12921.4(a), we demanded a final action on our consumer complaint to the California Department of Insurance to deny the validity of the settlement. The CDI refused. We filed a writ of mandate under CA C.C.P. § 1085 in the Southern District. (p. 520) Judge Anello dismissed our writ of mandate without prejudice. (p. 553) We appealed.

We filed our Opening Brief. (Ex. 54) The CA DOJ intervened on 3/18/20. We expected the CA DOJ would investigate. We urged it to act before the oral argument of attorney Rosen’s appeal on 5/12/20. It refused. (p. 625) Under color of law, its Answer urged the Ninth Circuit to interpret Judge Anello’s injunction, which pertains only to the policy, to “cover” the settlement. (p. 633-34) The Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed Anello’s dismissal without prejudice. (p. 640)

Attorney Rosen alleges this ongoing, chilling, extrinsic fraud, insurance bad faith, elder abuse and family financial exploitation has destroyed his marriage, his family, and his emotional well‐being. (p. 646) Hoping it’d save him, he threw us under the bus. (p. 642) He lied. (p. 650)

E. The Pending Liquidation of UCIC.

The settlement now interferes with Ms. Bernier’s claim no. 964.02. In the settlement, Travelers admits that it “realize[s] and understand[s]” the “risk of future claims.” (p. 4) Judge Nevitt had failed to determine what happened. Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case was the only opportunity to evaluate “the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and the strength of [Ms. Bernier’s] defenses with respect thereto.” (p. 2) California Civil Code § 1668 states that “[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Civil Code § 1598 states that “[w]here a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful,… the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1550 states that “[a] lawful object” is essential to the existence of a contract. Although the settlement between Travelers and Jessie has always been void, we claim its promissory benefits as its involuntary third party beneficiaries.

As a direct result of the settlement, the Receiver finds “Ms. Bernier is bound by Judge Nevitt’s factual findings and legal conclusions.” Judge Nevitt’s only conclusive factual finding is that Jessie and Ms. Bernier had both provided false testimony. It was not favorable to either party (p. 662) and it was the only basis for Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case [protected].

Judge Nevitt overruled Ms. Bernier’s objection. He found that “[i]n light of the Court’s findings in its Statement of Decision, ... the Court need not specifically address the issues identified by Ms. Bernier.” (p. 142) Attorney Kinsey served the Notice of Appeal, but failed to file it. There’s nothing in the record of the Construction Case to explain the credibility issues on which that judgment is based, other than the baseless order dated 10/16/07 which is unresolved criminal fraud. Judge So’s order to strike compounded that fraud by keeping her in the dark.

Travelers is homeowner’s insurance. UCIC is construction liability insurance. Travelers’ UMZ7908 Claim Notes establish substantial damages to her real property and that Travelers had contacted UCIC in 2007. Travelers and UCIC owe a fiduciary duty to Ms. Bernier not to Jessie.

The Receiver’s Determination is based on Judge Nevitt’s judgment being valid and final. However, Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case constituted a collateral attack on Judge Nevitt’s judgment. Travelers “settled” it in order to conflate the inequities of that judgment. “A valid, final judgment is not subject to collateral attack.” Kachig v. Boothe, 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 636 (1971); Miller v. City of Bakersfield, 256 CalApp.2d 820, 823 [An action for damages for malicious prosecution or fraud constitutes a collateral attack on the underlying judgments.]

UCIC’s attorneys worked closely with attorney Howe to collaterally attack Judge Nevitt’s judgment. (p. 654) UCIC’s attorneys defended Ms. Bernier’s collateral attack of that same judgment and interfered with her bankruptcy. The Receiver, in UCIC’s shoes, deems both collateral attacks to be extraneous to the pertinent facts he concludes are established by that same invalid judgment. (p. 32) UCIC and Travelers breached their fiduciary duties as evinced by 1. UCIC’s settlement in Jessie’s Coverage Case 2009‐98526 and 2. Travelers’ settlement in Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case 2011‐91919. Each settlement was based on the Construction Case.

Malicious prosecution is most difficult to prove. It’s a subjective, state-of-mind, quasi-criminal offense. Litigants “have the right to present issues that are arguably correct even if it is extremely unlikely” they’ll win. Downey, supra, p. 494. Judge Nevitt’s failure depended entirely on the unresolved baseless order. Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case depended entirely on a resolution of that failure in the Construction Case. Travelers’ void settlement has obscured that resolution ever since 12/24/12. Ms. Bernier has satisfied all elements of equitable tolling since 12/24/12. The defense of laches is unavailable. Travelers has had unclean hands since 8/26/07.

Travelers cannot conspire with Jessie and attorneys Dearn and Freedman to dismiss each of Ms. Bernier’s efforts to ferret out the truth in the Construction Case by relying on the same baseless order that Jessie is suspected of having tricked a Presiding Judge into signing and claim laches as this saga continues. The baseless order is subject to the continuing violations doctrine.

We recommend that Travelers’ Consumer Affairs have this complaint reviewed de-novo by an attorney not related to any previous law firm which Travelers has used in the past, as identified in Dearn and Freedman’s emails. (Ex. 14 and 17) We are trying to help Travelers help us end this nightmare before it impacts UCIC’s liquidation any further. UCIC’s liquidation Receiver has graciously afforded us more time to find an attorney, but the facts, as established herein, demonstrate the daunting challenge that Travelers is causing us with its void settlement.

Travelers mishandled claim no UMZ7908. With it settlement, Travelers then encouraged Jessie to file a frivolous malicious prosecution claim against attorney Rosen. The baseless order, Judge Nevitt’ judgment, and Travelers’ illegal settlement now expose us to monetary damages in our claim in the liquidation of UCIC. The records of all related cases clearly demonstrate that the baseless order is fueling this continuing unresolved criminal violation. The motive is money. The elder victim is sentenced to ridicule and death in a dilapidated unsafe home insured by Travelers.

In its Answer to our complaint to the CDI, Travelers claimed that it had the right to settle “any claim or suit that [Travelers] decide[s] is appropriate.” (p. 17) Due to Insurance Code § 533, this clause of the policy never applied in California. Downey, supra, p. 511. Nevertheless, as a result of Judge Nevitt’s failure and Travelers’ settlement, the reason why Travelers decided it was appropriate to “settle” is now a pivotal factor in claim no. 964.02 in UCIC’s liquidation.

Travelers must pay us an attorney to fix this mess. We do not want to disturb the other UCIC claimants. However, we cannot allow the Receiver to turn Judge Nevitt’s failure into a judgment that’s favorable to Jessie. Two Judges, both Nevitt and Oberholtzer, found Jessie to be a liar with respect to the facts of the Construction Case. (See the judgment in case no. 37-2008-[protected]-CU-BC-CTL, Court’s ROA, online). Jessie relied on Judge So’s baseless order against Hans. (p. 667) Travelers and UCIC encouraged Jessie to profit over $1,800,000. Travelers and UCIC breached their fiduciary duties and prevented Ms. Bernier from redressing her grievances.

Nothing but trouble, I got 2 estimates for my 3 month old Honda HR-V both around $8700 but travelers came up with a estimate from they're shop for a little over 6000. I've been warned by my auto body shop that there is no way they can do the job right for that cut throat price. There client was at fault, she hit me while I was sitting at a stop sign waiting for her to make her turn and she ran into me head on , never hit the brakes. I'm going to a chiro. This is price fixing one of they're reps rattled off 3 other body shops that he said would take his rate. He didn't have estimates, he just said they would take his rate. And the women that hit me, her husband works where I got 1 of my of my estimates Grossi auto body with a rate of $ 90, wonder where shes going to get her car fixed this is BS

My claim was denied after your ia went to my home and did a site walk with a contractor without my permission that I had go to my home only to give me a price to replace some beams and used hood opinion in his report to the adjuster. That is a total privacy violation to start with much less raise all sorts of ethical questions much less the fact my claim was denied because of [censored]ic reasoning. Anyone can see that huge splits in beams holding up a house and a roof is not natural settling (especially when pictures taken 4 months ago show they went there) in a 20 year old home, that something caused them to split and in this instance it was the massive trees cut down on my property

We just bought a home and geico went through travelers for our home insurance. We received notice a month after buying the home that the concrete patio needed to be redone. We received the notice on Friday before veterans day. They wanted proof that we had redone the concrete work by Monday. Two days to find a company and have everything done, and over the weekend at that. The concrete does not affect the structure or safety of the house and has been in its current condition for two previous homeowners. They also claim some of the brick around the bottom half of the house is crumbling. There is absolutely no place where brick is crumbling.

The Travelers receptionist in Wickenburg was rude to me on the 3 occasions when I came into the business to do business. I use to work for State Farm Insurance so I know a little bit about insurance. On one visit I came to pay my bill, another time I asked to change a couple of things on my policy and the last time I asked why a relative of mine had a lower rate than I had. I haven't had a ticket for 13+ years as you cannot drive a Dunbar Armored truck with any tickets, accidents, drivers license being taken away, etc. So when I asked about those three issues all the receptionist did was argue with me. She did take my payment but she didn't offer or change anything for me. What I want from Travelers is for the NOT to send me anymore correspondence. In one letter I received a request for me to not leave their company. In another letter I received today (10-2-21) a low auto insurance rate. To little to late as I went to another insurance company and they did what I requested. If you don't treat your paying customers with respect and consider their requests then they will move on...like I did. Now leave me alone.

I filed a claim with Travelers Insurance on August 16, 2020. There was water coming from the ceiling in my son's bedroom. When the adjuster came out he assessed the damage and concluded that a new roof was necessary. During the inspection, I pointed to a water stain in the dining room that I felt was related to the roof. He took me outside to show me a small pinhole in the siding and told me that the water mark was probably caused by rain getting in from the small hole. I thought nothing of it, until I decided to repaint the ceilings and walls and noticed the ceiling was unleveled. I immediately told the painter to stop the repairs because clearly something was wrong. The damaged area of the ceiling is right above the master bathroom so I thought it could be plumbing related. I called a plumber to inspect and he found structural damage to the subfloor and mold alongside a portion of the bathroom wall. I called Traveler's and submitted a new claim on September 1, 2021 due to the issues found. The adjuster came out and immediately said it was not covered because it was dry and appeared to be a pre-existing issue that could date back prior to me owning the home and/or a plumbing/bathroom tub issue. I explained to him the jacuzzi function in the tub had never worked and I rarely if ever soak in the tub and the roof was replaced last year. Thus, based on where the damage is, I doubt it came from the tub or pipes because there would still be evidence of moisture in the walls of the master bathroom and dining room ceiling because I bathe daily. I asked him to take a look at the sub-floor in the 2nd bathroom because there was evidence of moisture and I was growing increasingly concerned at the idea of a severe plumbing/mold issue. He inspected the 2nd bathroom sub-floor and found moisture using a water detection device. He then told me that there's no way of telling where the moisture was coming from. I asked for a write up of what he found and was told that he couldn't provide any documentation but agreed to send the photos taken. He left a voicemail stating he had discussed the claim with his supervisor and none of the damage was covered. Upon receipt of the photos, I sent a text stating that "The leak in the ceiling and master bath relates to the roof". I followed up via phone and explained that leaky pipes and tubs don't stop leaking thus the damage to the master bath and ceiling had to originate from outside. At that point the conversation took a turn for the worse. The adjuster questioned why I was just filing a claim and I had to explain to him again that the roof was replaced last year and the damaged area was pointed out to the first adjuster, however upon painting I noticed there had to be something going on. He said he would review the roof claim for evidence of the water mark in the dining room after I reiterated what the first adjuster told me regarding the water mark and the siding. He claimed he saw no such hole upon his inspection of the property. At this point, the inference of being a scammer and liar were enough for me. I have no need to make up stories, my policy is paid in full and the deductible is $2, 500. When I stated to him again that I was just exercising common sense because "pipes don't stop leaking but roofs do when they get repaired" thus why the entire area is dry and moldy. The adjuster then stated "he felt I was talking down to him". The truth is he became defensive and exhibited fragility when challenged on his beliefs by a black woman. And of course the first adjuster didn't document the water mark in the ceiling because that would be too much like right.

Due to the interaction with this adjuster, I placed a call to his supervisor and have yet to hear back. I also had another plumber come out to cut a hole in the ceiling and was assured there are no leaks in the pipes or bathtub. I am not sure where to go from here but the entire ordeal has made me very anxious and distrusting of insurance companies and adjusters. Also after the roof replacement, I was surprised when my premium went up $200. Typically roof replacements result in a reduction of premium due to less liability. I have placed calls and asked why the premium increased and have never gotten a straight answer, maybe now I know why. I am questioning everything right now, especially the integrity of both adjusters. At least I found the issue before I fell through the ceiling while showering or better yet suffered a debilitating disease due to mold exposure.

Best,

Eva Miller

The past winter we suffered damage to our roof that resulted in needing to have the complete roof repaired. However, our condo also needed new flooring and carpeting as it was saturated and mold started to grow. To this date (8/25/2021) our Insurance rep REFUSES to approve. It was approved to remove part to discover the total damage. The flooring that we had has been discontinued and his resolution is to get the next best thing to replace only partial. Issue is that there is no comparable flooring as the flooring is over 12 years old. He also refuses to pay out our Hotel reimbursement.

My insurance rate for [protected] increased by the following:
[protected] - $2079
[protected] - $2259
An increase of $180 - 8.6%

By comparison, coverage increased the following:
[protected] - $591, 800
[protected] - $598, 400
An increase of $6, 600 - 1.1%

Q. Why the large increase difference? Is it justified?
Q. Is this typical of all Texas insurance companies?

I have had Traveler's Home and Auto insurance since 2017 and never filed a claim. This premium to coverage difference is typical of the last 4 years.

Thanks,
M. Peacock

Horrible service - claim since january with my home still unrepaired due to traveler's inability to deliver adequate funds to start repairs amidst pandemic. Now, in hurricne season in july with unrepaired broken windows, glass in carpet, and now mildew problems. Suggested companies with the worst rating as who they trust for bids. This is what 25 years of paying for insurance with travelers gets you. Still walking on glass in carpet and grandson came and visited to step on glass in the carpet. Representative sends an email when he is going to be out of the office. Totally disguted with their disrespectfulness and empty jargon of taking care of customers. They do not care because it is not their house.

My home was flooded in February due to the Arctic Blast. I've sustained a tremendous amount of damage and I'm now on my 3rd adjuster. Each transition I've had to start over trying to get my reimbursements for which I'm out of pocket 1, 000's of $$$. I'm getting random reimbursements with no backup. I'm getting very little communication from anyone. My Travelers Claim is IMP2637. I'm going to file a complaint with my Texas Ombudsman, but also wanted to make you aware. I will also send this same complaint onto every online insurance forum I can find as well as any member of the Texas management team i can find. I can't imagine this going any worse than it has. I know many many people in my area that have sustained similar property damage from this storm and no one is dealing with the poor service and lack of communication that I'm dealing with. My number is [protected] if that's important. I'M BEYOND FRUSTRATED!

Failure to pay for damage caused by extreme sub-freezing temperatures recognizes as a Federal disaster that cause floor tile to separate from foundation. Travelers Adjuster Trey Bayer never in person survey the damage or sent a Travelers Rep to review floor in the home. Trey Bayer was always to busy. BRUNO WOSCHNAGG, Trey Bayer Superior issued by phone to my Agent no pay 04/28/2021 due to lost of power "Electrical:. I had a emergency generator connected to house and supplied 240vac to the power panel and had 2 gas furnaces
providing heat and 2 gas fireplaces providing heat. I did everything in my power to mitigate any damage to the house caused by the sub-freeze temperatures. I did not have any frozen pipes inside or outside due to the actions I took secure the hone.
Describe what you would consider to be a fair resolution to your complaint.
This case was not handled professionally or timely, the amount of the claim was $$26500.00 estimate provide by the All Floor and Tile Store that I requested so to have some kind of idea of cost.
Travelers never estimated the repair cost, I provide estimated cost to Trey Bayer Travelers Adjuster.

Travelers Insurance has paid $600, 000.00 claims that I have been inform due to frozen busted pipes caused by lost of power.

Travelers has not been be honest in the handling of this claim and it appear they have actually discriminate against my wife and I because of our age 70yrs old, by giving us difficult hard time with the claim and not acting on the claim with any urgency.

We must not have the right agent for Travelers to recongnize the claim as claims with the same power lost principles.

My roof was affected by one of the storm hit my area back in 2020. I contacted my insurance company (Travelers) and my contractor for home inspection. My contractor done everything they ask him to do it. At the end my insurance refused to repair my entire roof but they want to repair part of it. In addition to that the communication with this company is very poor, they don't respond to my emails or voicemails. I feel like they don't treat me fair as my neighbor cross the street from my house repaired his roof with no headache.

Good evening I bought this property in November after doing home inspections and contract the travelers home insurance 4 months a go, this month my water heater had problems and I contacted Travelers and Mrs Ava said that I should look for a authorized plumber and they diagnosed the problem and the plumber coming in my house and diagnosed the problem and send a diagnostic and pictures, and the Travelers declaim my claim number IMM3772 Date of Loss 3/6/21 saying my water heater was old and rusty, this is lie and I have the invoice and photos that prove. this company has record of complains for refusing claims and I would ask for a help.I will send you pictures, videos and invoice
Phone of Travelers [protected] Manager Robert and Ava

I closed on my house in November 26, 2020 and Travelers was chosen for my homeowner's insurance. On December 5, 2020 I received an email stating that my policy will be cancelled for non-payment. This is only 9 days after closing. Unknown to me, the closing attorney had not sent the required documents. Then on January 22, 2021 I received a refund check from Travelers because they cancelled my policy again. This time I didn't receive an email or a letter in the mail. When I called to find out why they said it was cancelled because the roof needed to be be replaced, the deck need to be redone and the there was a hole in the siding on the right side of the house from a bird pecking a hole. Travelers didn't give me the opportunity to make any repairs and they didn't communicate with me before cancelling. I bought this house knowing that repairs needed to be made. Had they contacted me they would have found out that I have hired a contractor to do work on the house. I now have a policy with State Farm. I will need recommend Travelers to anyone. I would be interested to know how many policies in a different zip code are cancelled for the same reasons without notification.

I am concerned with increase in annual price of home insurance without a claim that affects yearly mortgage payment. this is my last year with travelers insurance

On june 28th, 2020 I report a claim on my property about missing, broken or torn shingles, shingles that have cupped or curled along their edges, bald shingles that have lost their granules, roof leaks in multiple places and rotted roof sheathing. The adjuster told me that despite the damages, he would not authorize my claim for a roof replacement because my roof is only 20 years old. I feel more like he was only saying this to me because of the color of my skin. As minorities, we feel as if our privileges are being taken away from us. I have severe water damages inside my house including 2 bedrooms, hallway, living room, basement, office space, 2 bathrooms and more. I have been insured with this company probably over 2 years and this is my 2 claimed. My first claim was very minor.
I have contacted independent roof contractors to check the level of damages of my roof and to make a reasonable recommendation; and they have supported their assessment with photos of damages on the roof. They have also given me an estimation cost of replacement which I will provide to you.
I strongly believe that base on the assessment and evidences provided to the current state of my roof, it is reasonable and sufficient to articulate that my roof needs a replacement.

I recently switched insurances after calling in for a quote and the agent convinced me that since I'd recently switched auto, my homeowners would go up with the other company even though no evidence of that yet. He went through the multiple insurance plans and what not and since I have an older home I was told I'd have to go with travelers. He had to redo my submission multiple times due to name errors and also because he tried with husband included on account and came back higher rates than originally stated. So then next few weeks I'm bombarded with multiple copies of acceptance letters and handbooks. I quit going through them for awhile but noticed one was an adjustment to auto pay and the recent one was a cancellation notice. We call and are told there were multiple issues found during inspection that needed to be addressed by cancellation which was in 3 days in middle of winter south dakota small rural town. So we get the photos in question. Talk to multiple agents to insure we know what needs repaired. Were told the "debris" (kids toys, brush piles, hose, etc) would need removed, the deck being renovated (it was never there it was currently being installed!) Would need rails. The roof had missing shingles that needed replaced and chimney had missing mortar needing replaced. Even when I stated the roof was contracted for replacement finally in the spring they pushed for the repairs. Even after being told the risk and liability of having us do the repairs. There was no discussion on it having to be by a contractor and never once used term replace the roof. But after we jump all the hoops and call in with proof of pictures to show it. they review and deny us saying nope. Roof is in too bad of shape (no its not) and itll need replaced before day of cancelling. We spent three days, missed work, risked our health and lives, bent over backwards to meet the deadline and do as told and they changed the terms and still cancelled us. The mediator told us the only hope would be to get a contractor to sign off that the roof would last 10 years even though only needed until spring. They couldn't just take the roof out of the policy. We were screwed. Its winter my house is old the trees around us are old and I've NEVER been uninsured and now I cant sleep or eat and just see all the dangers and fear waking up having nothing and no insurance to help in such a disaster. I'm terrified and upset. I dont feel the roof is that level of danger. I was honest during screening and errors on side of saying it hasn't been replaced since built though I know its has at some point. Please this is just wrong. We have very little money, what we do have is saved to replace the roof. If something happens and I have to use that money we will just get further and further beyond.

My father had a car accident in late 2017 after moving from Texas to Idaho. He had insurance in Texas and the claim has been handled. He contacted Brazos Valley Insurance Agency on 11.29.2017 and notified Tina (assistant) that he was cancelling his auto policy as he had found auto insurance in Idaho which was more reasonable. Tina did not give notice to my father that he needed to provide a written notification of cancellation at that time. Tina accepted the cancellation notice over the phone. My father then received a letter from the Credit Collection Services that he owed 290.00 for the travelers company issuing the policy. My father contacted Tina again at BVIA and she asked for proof of new insurance, which he faxed to her but now she tells him that he needs to provide a written cancellation. My father already provided cancellation notice to BVIA and that notice was accepted. After this contact, my father then received a letter from the collection agency with a 50% offer off his debt owed of 145.00.
This is unacceptable as the notice of cancellation was provided to the insurance agency and the agent or office staff should have cancelled the policy at that time and surely not turned over the new policy (that was never asked for and specifically canceled) debt to a third party debt collector.
I am asking Travelers to waive the now discounted price of the debt of 145.00.

Sincerely,

Renee R. Hollander-Vogelpohl on behalf of my 80-year old father Ben Hollander.

I bought travel insurance through Delta Airlines for roundtrip airfare from DTW-LAX on Feb 27-Mar4, 2019. Then submitted a claim, #[protected]-001 which was unfortunately denied. I realize now, did not know before that the terms and conditions of this lousy useless travel insurance policy does not apply to travelers with preexisting mental condition since I was told by the customer rep that I spoke with that mental conditions are not considered "medical conditions" according to the "Allianz" terms and conditions policy. My son had an anxiety attack due to some medication change so we needed to seek immediate help.
I am challenging this policy and prepared to go to the press and escalate it further until it is changed. As an advocate for my so, who has traveled on his own last year with Delta Airlines, and multiple other times with Delta and other carriers with NO issues, I find this exclusion demeaning to all of the entire mental health patients and their care givers. I further spoke with case managers from the health care system and they are ready to support my mission and fight this type of discrimination.
I will not fly with Delta airlines going forward until I get refunded and until this policy is revised. I am also in the process of seeking legal action. This is a discriminatory. According to the American Psychiatric Association "Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a medical problem, just like heart disease or diabetes." I am sure I will be able to get additional support if needed.
I can be reached at [protected]
Jihan Bani-Awad
For (Joseph Zecharia)

Reference: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness