We’ve seen that SIU files and investigations are discoverable. A more intresting question arises when an investigator take the stand, and speaks to a jury about “indicators of fraud1.” Normally, the investigator will testify that the facts had five or six of the indicators of fraud, or something similar. And normally, those indicators are:
1. Policy purchased near the accident date
2. Older car
3. Accident was in the evening
4. Not a high speed collission
5. Injured/Parties didn’t do what the insurance company told them to (failure to cooperate)
6. Material Misrepresentations (Passenger #1 said they were heading to McDonalds. Passenger #2 said they were heading to Burger King)
7. Everyone in the car wasn’t related
8. Link charts (sometimes color coded)
The investigator may testify as to a host of other criteria that, in the insurance company’s opinion, indicates that the accident was staged. He or she will give a formula or system that outlines this in support of the testimony. In other words, the investigator will attempt to pass this off as reliable or scientific in nature. With that in mind, should the foundation of the testimony be subject to a Frye inquiry? Do any of the above factors indicate fraud anymore than other random sets of facts? Or is it just profiling?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
1. These indicators can come from the insurance company or an organization such as the NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau). Despite it’s name, the NICB is not a government agency; it is supported by insurance companies. Before you start thinking I’m crazy, remember, the NICB went out of its way to state that it is a private entity, not subject to regulation by the insurance department and that they do not have to hire licensed investigators. Insurance Companies, however, do have to hire licensed investigators. Based on my reading of their motions, they don’t. Yes, I know the Supreme Court bounced the Article 78.
Jesus David you too. The Supreme Court did not bounce the Article 78. One Judge did. This is the Judge that called for an Oral Argument without a Court reporter. Told me in front of everyone that the insurance companies had a right to keep a tight fist around their money. Asked me to discontinue something I spent months putting together — the evidence. Stated that the Court was going on vacation and did not want to read all these papers. The case got transferred to another Justice but the above Justice renders the decision although the case is still listed in OCA as being assigned to the new justice and adjourned.
I have appealed. It would have been perfected but there were delays by the Court in getting all the materials together because they have been spread all over kingdom come. (I will post the Briefs)
Nice things happen on Appeal David. Roe v. Wade; Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed; Bush v. Gore — ah forget the last one. Name it. I know no faulters tend to give up because that’s what they do. Not the Zuppa.
I agree with your junk science analysis but for God’s Sake I would be happy just to see someone from the NICB come down and testify that these are our criteria for possible staged accident. Then you could attack the expertise; the junk science etc., but you probably could not because the NICB witness would have no idea where it came from and the Courts would say that they did not have to.
However it aint going to happen because these Courts have deemed SIU Investigators and NICB Special Investigators to be experts via Judicial Notice — Insurance Company Clout is the Judicial Notice. The NICB is so God like that the must merely be mentioned in order for them and their idiocy to have hard omnipotence where there should only be soft impotence.