Witness Moujahid maintained he was the owner and operator at All Cities Security Services at his office is located in a residential neighborhood in the City of Gardena. He maintained not to discuss the manpower of his business or whether his security guards were either armed or unarmed uniformed or non-uniformed personnel. He did maintain that his security guard company was established in 2002.
At the time of the interview, Moujahid continually repeated he did not have the contract which he had had assured us to provide accurate dates of when he had serviced the insured, and the services agreed on. He maintained he would be able to provide this information by contacting the investigator over the weekend as he had forgotten to bring the paperwork with him.
Moujahid recalled servicing the insured with his services throughout last year in 2015 and claimed his company had serviced the insured before about five years ago before the company called him back for his guard services in in 2015. He said the 2015 contract expired because the company, Monico Alloy’s was having financial difficulty and was on a work-slow-down.
Moujahid refused to elaborate on the insured 's financial status soon after he had mentioned the financial status of the company and was afraid to elaborate further on this matter.
He said his company serviced the insured between seven to eight months before the contract expired in March 2015. He again did not have the exact dates of when the contracted and
Ms. Redding stated she did not want to argue or debate with the claimant as to the claimant’s initial allegations of injuries and not being work related as told to her on 11-13-2015.
Ms. Yu said she confused about why Amtrust North America had not turned over the claimant’s personnel file for review before this investigation started. She insisted that we should have reviewed the file before commencing the investigation.
Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted
instructed to provide a written statement to Amerigroup verifying that this is true, so that they may make
There is a claim that some “fishy” business went down in the stock market and insurance
National Surety justifies its disregard of the Waivers because—it contends—WCS forfeited its right to enforce the Waivers upon the execution of the 2007 settlement agreement. This position, however, is couched on the mistaken premise that the Waivers are “rights, claims, debts, liens, demands, [or] actions of any nature whatsoever.” (Appellant’s Brief at p. 9). To the contrary, the Waivers bargained for in the AIA Contract operate as immediate discharges of Metropolitan’s right to pursue claims that are covered by insurance. Accordingly, the Waivers are units of consideration that Metropolitan tendered when the AIA Contract was executed. Therefore, irrespective of whether the 2007 settlement is a substitute contract—it is not—the
10. In certain defense terms, the insurer cannot describe the invalid or deny any time limit on the policy of the wrong claim, if the policy has become 2 years of
Have been in business for a minimum of six months unless the agency provides a much-needed service not otherwise available in the community CITE
Hernandez led the clients to believe he handled their workers compensation policies that provided insurance coverage for their employees. Each company was issued a fake insurance policy certificate that gave the false appearance of being a valid form of insurance company.
The document you have provided me is under a totally different serial and model number. That’s why I want to verify it, but you won’t provide me with necessary info that is required to complete the registration or verify it. I don’t understand why you can’t provide me this information that you were also required to have had in order for you to complete the warranty registration.
Ernst & Whinney should have evaluated the reliability of the insurance restoration contracts since it was created internally by ZZZZ Best. Furthermore, the limited details in the contracts as noted in the ten red flags that ZZZZ Best’s auditors allegedly overlooked should have raised certain professional skepticism of the auditors. While performing analytical procedures on ZZZZ Best’s financial statement, its auditors failed to notice the substantial excess in its profit margin for restoration projects comparing to the rest of the industry. Physical examination, although a very reliable type of evidence for auditors, was unreliable in this case. Barry Minkow and his accomplices went to great length to cover up their fraud and successfully deceived their auditor. Moreover, the auditors did not have the authority to corroborate evidence with outside third-party due to the confidentiality agreement with ZZZZ Best.
What is this all about? We received instruction from your office to add Sunsetter as a new entity to springs existing insurance program effective 01/08/2016. The attached invoice is for the Punitive Damage coverage. UK is a very small entity yet we are receiving a charge of over 3% on top of what was paid for the entire policy year of 8 1 2015 to 8 1 2016. SunSetter is just 6 months of this term thus actual charge is over 7 charge on annual premium of $90,744; first layer. (3212/90744) 3.54%. Both, 1st and 2nd excess Punitive Damage premiums are calculated based on 13% of the domestic premium.
Springs’ current insurance program can satisfy the attached insurance contract between Citibank and Mechshade. No separate bond is necessary. There’s probably not a whole lot of room for improvement to the attached contract since it’s fully executed, but we always make an attempt, just in case there is the slightest possibility. All our comments and edits in the contract are based on an insurance risk management perspective, and the certificate (COI) is issued based on our recommendation. Please have your legal counsel review and approve any changes to your agreements.
The security guard services industry consisted of two segments: proprietary guards and contract guards. The historical growth was driven by companies realizing, that contracting guards allowed them gain operating flexibility instead of managing their own security personnel. In 1987 security guard services was a $10 billion industry growing at 6% a year. Due to the industry being very mature, fragmented, and price competitive there was an ongoing consolidation trend.
Below are some possible problem areas that may turn out to to be barriers to