Insurance Claims Investigation News

Colorado legislators are considering whether to make it harder for workers comp insurers to use video surveillance to ferret out suspicious injury claims. Legislators on an interim committee are looking into the state’s largest comp insurer, contending Pinnacol Assurance’s anti-fraud video surveillance was excessive. Pinnacol says its surveillance is legal and often is the key evidence in landing convictions for fake injury claims. One proposal that may come before the 2010 legislature would require insurers to show “probable cause” before being allowed to use video surveillance.

DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
121

Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.

Torts — Invasion of Privacy — Intrusion upon Seclusion — Expectation of Privacy

— Abuse of Process.

Plaintiff was videotaped by a private investigator who had been hired
to investigate the validity of his workers’ compensation claim for an
alleged work-related injury. He claimed an invasion of privacy because
he was videotaped while at worship in a mosque, which was open to the
public. The surveillance was conducted through a window of the
mosque with a video camera equipped with a zoom lens from a public
vantage point approximately 80 yards away.

1. In Pennsylvania, a violation of the right to privacy is an actionable tort. Harris by Harris v. Easton Publishing Co., 483 A.2d 1377, 1383 (Pa. Super. 1984).
2. Under Pennsylvania law, a party seeking workers’compensation benefits must expect to have his or her claims investigated, and is thus afforded a diminished expectation of privacy.
3. Watching or observing a person in a public place, or taking a photograph of a person who can be observed from a public vantage point, is not generally an invasion of privacy. See, e.g., Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 721 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1983).
4. A tortious invasion of privacy must “cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.” DeAngelo v. Fortney, 515 A.2d 594, 595 (1986) (quoting Hull v. Curtis Publishing Co., 125 A.2d 644, 646 (Pa. 1956).

Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. C.P., Dau. Co., No. 2006 CV
1532 CV. Defendants’ motion granted and Plaintiff’s action dismissed
in its entirety with prejudice.
David W. Knauer, for Plaintiff
James A. Bosakowski, for Defendants

TURGEON, J., May 27, 2009. –

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants invaded his privacy and abused legal process when they surreptitiously videotaped him through a window while he worshipped at an Islamic Center. The defendants, private investigators, had been hired to investigate the validity of plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim for his alleged work-related injury and videotaped plaintiff in the performance of his daily activities. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, this court grants defendant’s motion and dismisses plaintiff’s action.

BACKGROUND
The undisputed relevant facts set forth in the record are as follows:

1
On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff Ahmed Tagouma fell at work while employed at Arnold Industries. He suffered an acute fracture of his right hand. Plaintiff was later diagnosed with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome (RSD).
2
Plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits and Arnold Logistics contested his claim. While the claim was pending, the workers’ compensation carrier, Sentry Insurance, retained defendant Investigative Consultant Services (ICS) to perform surveillance on plaintiff. Defendant Michael Zeigler, an investigator with ICS, was assigned to conduct the surveillance.
Plaintiff, currently 53 years old, is an Moroccan immigrant and a Muslim who worshipped at the Al-Hikmeh Institute, which is housed on the first floor of Islamic Center of PA, located at 4704 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg. The Islamic Center of PA is in a non-descript two-story building that most closely resembles an apartment building. (Court Exbt. 1) Plaintiff describes the Al-Hikmeh portion of the building as a mosque. A large sign in front of the Center visible to passersby identifies the property as “The Islamic Center of PA – Al-Hikmeh Institute – Daily Worship, Arabic / Islamic Studies.” (Court Exbt. 3)
The Islamic Center sits to the south of Carlisle Pike (U.S. Highway Route 11), which is a commercial highway that runs generally eastwest in the area in question. The record indicates that there are no public sidewalks along Carlisle Pike although all the areas in front of the businesses in the vicinity are paved such that public parking is abundant. (Court Exbt. 1)
1. The record includes the parties’ summary judgment motions and exhibits attached to defendants’ motion (Exhibit A – Complaint; Exhibit B – Answer; and Exhibit C – Plaintiff Tagouma’s Deposition); responses to summary judgment motions; Supplemental Packet of exhibits provided by plaintiff following oral argument (Exhibit a – Zeigler Deposition; Exhibit b – Workers’ Compensation Petition; Exhibit c – Workers’ Compensation Answer;
Exhibit d – Workers’ Compensation Order; Exhibit e – Junkins Affidavit; and Exhibit f -Kownacki Affidavit); photos provided to the Court by plaintiff (designated Court Exhibit 1 – two Carlisle Pike photos (The Islamic Center of PA and surveillance location); Court Exhibit 2 – close-up photo of plaintiff through window; and Court Exhibit 3 – photo of sign in front of The Islamic Center),
2. RSD, also referred to as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), is a chronic neurological syndrome characterized by severe pain, which usually arises following injury to nerve or soft tissue (e.g. broken bone) that does not follow the normal healing path. Its development does not appear to depend on the magnitude of the injury and the sympathetic nervous system seems to assume an abnormal function after an injury.
http://www.rsds.org/2/what_is_rsd_crps/index.html (RSDSA website, last visited May5, 2009).

The Islamic Center of PA is situated just to the rear of two businesses that sit, respectively, just in front of it to its left and just in front of it to its right. (Court Exbt. 1) A driveway runs between these two businesses and leads to The Islamic Center, where public parking exists at its front, side and rear. (Plaintiff dep. at 31). Persons traveling by car on Carlisle Pike can see The Islamic Center from the highway though their view is limited by the businesses to its front right and left, respectively. A number of other buildings housing various businesses are also located in the area, including a three-store strip mall located immediately across the Carlisle Pike (on its north side) from The Islamic Center.
According to defendant Zeigler, on April 7, 2005, at approximately 9:10 p.m., he parked in front of the three-store strip mall in a public lot, though at the time he parked there, all three businesses were closed. Zeigler observed the plaintiff from across Carlisle Pike as plaintiff stood inside in the Al-Hikmeh portion The Islamic Center near a window on the building’s north side. Zeigler was between 79 and 80 yards away from The Islamic Center windows. Defendant Zeigler videotaped plaintiff for 45 minutes with a Sony 8 mm video camera and used the camera’s zoom feature. (Suppl. Exbt. f – Kownacki Affidavit)
Zeigler testified that at first he was unsure what the people inside The Islamic Center were doing, though after a while, he began to think “they
might be praying.” (Zeigler dep. at 13) He believed since plaintiff was
in plain view, he could videotape him. (Zeigler dep. at 14) He was
trained to videotape subjects so long as they were “in public” or “in
plain view,” even if inside a public building. (Zeigler dep. at 6-7) The
videotape was subsequently shown to a workers’ compensation judge.
3
Plaintiff was not aware that Zeigler was conducting surveillance of him or videotaping him until a later time. He testified he was standing six to eight feet from the window through which he was recorded and that the Al-Hikmeh Institute was lit inside. He was standing up and praying in the video; his prayer consisted of standing up, kneeling and placing his head upon the floor. (Plaintiff dep. at 28) Plaintiff testified that “when I go in front of God, that’s my own privacy, my own prayer between me and my God, my sacred place, my sacred time, and nobody has the right to interfere or invade that time with God — with me and God.” (Plaintiff dep. at 38-39)
3. While videotape and/or photographs were also taken of plaintiff at other locations and on other dates, including at stores, in parks and while plaintiff was walking on the street, only video taken of plaintiff at The Islamic Center is at issue in this action. (Plaintiff dep. at 20-21)

LEGAL DISCUSSION
In Counts I and II of the Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable because they invaded his privacy by videotaping him while in his mosque. In Counts III and IV of the Complaint, plaintiff asserts abuse of process. Defendants seek summary judgment arguing that based upon the undisputed facts of record, plaintiff cannot establish either claim as a matter of law. The Rule for deciding the cross motions for summary judgment, applicable here, is as follows:
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by
additional discovery or expert report, or …
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2.
Summary judgment is properly entered where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.1-.5. The trial court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all doubts against the moving party. The burden is on the moving
party to prove that no genuine issue of fact exists. However, when the moving party carries its initial burden, the adverse party may not rest upon the allegations or denials contained in the pleadings, but must respond
by showing there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment will be entered in favor of the moving party. …
Preferred Fire Prot., Inc. v. Joseph Davis, Inc., 954 A.2d 20, 24
(Pa.Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

INVASION OF PRIVACY – INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
In Counts I and II of the Complaint, plaintiff has alleged that defendants are liable because they invaded his privacy by videotaping him while he was at worship in a mosque. The specific claim alleged by plaintiff is intrusion upon seclusion. Under the undisputed facts of record, plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, set forth a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. The record establishes that plaintiff was videotaped at a location where he was visible to the public. In addition, he was himself located in a public place. Furthermore, under Pennsylvania law, a party seeking workers’ compensation benefits must expect to have his or her claims investigated and thus is afforded a diminished expectation of privacy. Alternatively, even if it could be assumed that plaintiff’s location in his mosque, during prayer, constituted a private or semi-private space in which plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, his claim would still fail because defendants’ conduct was not “highly offensive” as a matter of law.

In Pennsylvania, a violation of the right to privacy is an actionable tort. Harris by Harris v. Easton Publishing Co., 483 A.2d 1377, 1383 (Pa. Super. 1984). The gist of privacy is the sense of seclusion, the wish to be left alone, and it is a trespass to abuse these personal sensibilities. Bennett v. Norban, 151 A.2d 476, 479 (Pa. 1959). Our supreme court has approved of the Second Restatement of Torts’formulation of invasion of privacy, which is actually comprised of four analytically distinct torts:
(1) intrusion upon seclusion, (2) appropriation of name or likeness, (3)
publicity given to private life, and (4) publicity placing a person in false
light. Marks v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 331 A.2d 424,
430 (Pa. 1975). These four invasion of privacy torts are set forth in §§
652B-E of the Restatement. Although our supreme court has not specif-
ically adopted the final draft of the Second Restatement, our appellate
courts have concluded that “the Restatement most ably defines the ele-
ments of invasion of privacy as that tort has developed in Pennsylvania.”
Harris by Harris at 1383; see also, Burger v. Blair Medical Associates,
Inc., 928 A.2d 246, 250 (Pa.Super. 2007).

Plaintiff’s privacy claim alleges intrusion upon seclusion, which is
defined in the Restatement as follows:
§ 652B. Intrusion upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise,
upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private
affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for
invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly
offensive to a reasonable person.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. The superior court in Harris by
Harris further elaborated as follows:

An action pursuant to this section does not depend
upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is
invaded or to his affairs. Restatement (Second) of Torts
§652B, comment a. The invasion may be (1) by physical
intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has secluded
himself, (2) by use of the defendant’s senses to oversee or
overhear the plaintiff’s private affairs, or (3) some other
form of investigation or examination into plaintiff’s
private concerns. Id., comment b.
The defendant is subject to liability under this section
only when he has intruded into a private place, or has
otherwise invaded a private seclusion that the plaintiff
has thrown about his person or affairs. Id., comment c;
Fogel v. Forbes, Inc., 500 F.Supp. at 1087. There is also
no liability unless the interference with the plaintiff’s
seclusion is substantial and would be highly offensive to
the ordinary reasonable person. Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 652B, comment d.
Harris by Harris at 1383-84. “[T]his cause of action also requires that
the plaintiff have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Kline v. Security
Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 260 (3rd Cir. 2004) (citing Harris by Harris
at 1383). Finally, a tortious invasion of privacy must “cause mental suf-
fering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”
DeAngelo v. Fortney, 515 A.2d 594, 595 (1986) (quoting Hull v. Curtis
Publishing Co., 125 A.2d 644, 646 (Pa. 1956)).
As set forth above, intrusion upon seclusion can occur under three
situations: (1) by physical intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has
secluded himself, (2) by use of the defendant’s senses to oversee or
overhear the plaintiff’s private affairs, or (3) some other form of inves-
tigation or examination into plaintiff’s private concerns. Harris by
Harris at 1384. Plaintiff’s claim necessarily rests upon an assertion that
defendants invaded his privacy by overseeing (videotaping) his private
affairs; this is not a case where the defendants are alleged to have
physically intruded into plaintiff’s place of seclusion since it is
uncontradicted that defendants surveilled plaintiff without plaintiff’s
knowledge from a distance of 79-80 yards.
Our supreme court addressed a similar set of facts in the seminal case
of Forster v. Manchester, 189 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1963). There, the plaintiff
filed a lawsuit for personal injury damages arising from an automobile
accident. Her automobile insurer hired a private detective who conduct-
ed surveillance and filmed plaintiff in her daily activities. Plaintiff later
brought an action against the detective alleging invasion of privacy. The
trial court dismissed her claims. Id. at 148-49. On appeal, in addressing
the extent of the interest to be protected, the Pennsylvania supreme court
stated:

It is not uncommon for defendants in accident cases to
employ investigators to check on the validity of claims
against them. Thus, by making a claim for personal
injuries [plaintiff] must expect reasonable inquiry and
investigation to be made of her claim and to this extent
her interest in privacy is circumscribed. It should also
be noted that all of the surveillances took place in the
open on public thoroughfares where [plaintiffs] activi-
ties could be observed by passersby. To this extent
[plaintiff] has exposed herself to public observation
and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of pri-
vacy that she would enjoy within the confines of her
own home. … There was nothing unreasonable in the
manner in which [plaintiff] was followed nor in the taking
of motion pictures. In regard to the surveillance, it was
conducted by experienced investigators who did not use
improper techniques … there was no trespassing on appel-
lant’s property nor spying through her windows.
Id. at 150 (emphasis added). Compare, Pappa v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21500; 43 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA)
2389 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (court refused to dismiss the plaintiff insured’s
claim for intrusion upon seclusion arising from her insurer’s surveil-
lance, distinguishing Forster on basis that plaintiff in Pappa was sur-
veilled in private areas of her home including through her bedroom and
bathroom windows). Because plaintiff here had pending a contested
workers’ compensation claim, he waived his right of privacy to the
extent of a reasonable investigation.
Under Pennsylvania law, there is generally no right of privacy in pub-
lic space or in space open to public view and thus there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in such space. See e.g., Harris by Harris at 1383
(“[t]he defendant is subject to liability under this section only when he
has intruded into a private place”). This public/private space paradigm
was analyzed by the Eastern District Court, applying Pennsylvania law,
as follows:

This tort generally does not apply to matters which occur
in a public place or a place otherwise open to the public
eye. Comment c to § 652B illustrates this point:
The defendant is subject to liability under the
rule stated in this Section only when he has
intruded into a private place, or has otherwise
invaded a private seclusion that the plaintiff has
thrown about his person or affairs. …. Nor is
there liability for observing him or even taking
his photograph, while he is walking on the pub-
lic highway, since he is not then in seclusion, and
his appearance is public and open to the public
eye. Even in a public place, however, there may
be some matters about the plaintiff, such as his
underwear or the lack of it, that are not exhibit-
ed to the public gaze; and there may still be inva-
sion of privacy when there is intrusion upon
these matters.
4
Comment c underscores the traditional rule that
watching or observing a person in a public place, or
taking a photograph of a person who can be observed
from a public vantage point, is not generally an inva-
sion of privacy. See, e.g., Wehling v. Columbia
Broadcasting System, 721 F.2d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 1983)
(broadcasting a picture of plaintiff’s residence which
showed nothing more than what could be seen from a
public street is not an invasion of privacy); Dempsey v.
The National Enquirer, 702 F. Supp. 927, 931 (D. Me.
1988) (a reporter’s presence on a public thoroughfare and
in a restaurant open to the public cannot constitute an
intrusion upon seclusion of another); Machleder v. Diaz,
4. Examples where courts have recognized an invasion of private affairs found in the
public are revealed in the following cases: Johnson v. Allen, 613 S.E.2d 657 (Ga. Ct. App.
2005) (surveillance in a public restroom constituted an invasion of privacy) and Daily
Times Democrat v. Graham, 162 So.2d 474, 476 (Ala. 1964) (woman photographed at a
county fair with her skirt blown up over her head stated a cause of action where the pho-
tographer was lying in wait to catch the woman in an embarrassing situation); see also,
Shulman v. Group W Prods., 18 Cal. 4th 200, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (Cal. 1998) (triable issue
existed as to whether plaintiffs injured in accident, who were filmed by the media at the
scene, had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior of the rescue helicopter, which served as their ambulance).

538 F. Supp. 1364, 1374 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (no liability for
intrusion upon seclusion when defendant accosted and
filmed plaintiff on the property of a corporation, a “semi-
public” place, where he was visible to the public eye).
Wolfson v. Lewis, 924 F. Supp. 1413, 1419-20 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (empha-
sis added) (footnote supplied). See also, Brian Patrick Bronson,
Pennsylvania’s Common Law Right to Privacy Inadequately Protects
the Rights of Individual Workers’ Compensation Claimants from
Harassment Caused by Video Surveillance, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 523, 532-33
(2002) (“[c]ourts have continually defined “public space” to cover “a
wide range of locations, from bustling thoroughfares to remote getaways
… the term generally, includes any place, whether publicly or privately
owned, to which the public has access” and that “the judiciary has
expanded the definition to include anywhere that is visible from a pub-
licly accessible vantage point, such as parts of the interior of one’s home
or garden that are visible from the street[;] [public space] may even
include parts of the interior of one’s home that can be seen with the
naked eye from a neighboring apartment”) (citations omitted)).
5
5. Courts from other jurisdictions universally agree with the general rule that there can
be no intrusion upon seclusion for watching or observing a person in a public place, or tak-
ing a photograph/videotape of a person who can be observed from a public vantage point,
even if in a private place. See e.g., Summers v. Bailey, 55 F.3d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir. 1995)
(watching or observing a person in a public place is not an intrusion upon one’s privacy);
Furman v. Sheppard, 744 A.2d 583, 586-87 (Md. App. 2000) (because plaintiff in a personal injury action was seen doing things that could be observed by non-trespassing members of the general public, the defendant’s trespass onto a private yacht club to videotape plaintiff did not constitute an actionable intrusion); Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co., 391
N.E.2d 935, 939 (Mass. App. 1979) (“[t]he appearance of a person in a public place necessarily involves doffing the cloak of privacy which the law protects”); DiGirolamo v. D.P.
Anderson & Associates, Inc., 1999 Mass. Super. LEXIS 190, *13 (Mass. Super., 1999)
(workers’ compensation investigator’s observation of claimant from public street through window of her residence, without enhanced vision, did not constitute intrusion upon seclusion); Figured v. Paralegal Technical Services, Inc., 555 A.2d 663, 667 (N.J. Super. 1989)
(no intrusion upon seclusion as matter of law by investigators of auto insurance claim since defendants’ investigation took place in the open; “law supports the proposition that whatever the public may see from a public place cannot be private”); and McLain v. Boise
Cascade Corporation, 533 P.2d 343, 346 (Ore. 1975) (where surveillance was done in an unobtrusive manner and plaintiff was not aware he was being watched and filmed, and where plaintiffs activities could have been observed by his neighbors or passersby, no cause of action for invasion of privacy against trespassing investigator). See also, Patricia
Sanchez Abril, Recasting Privacy Torts in a Spaceless World, 21 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1, 13
(2007) (“[u]nder the Restatement, an individual cannot have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in any public place”); Andrew J. McClurg, Bringing Privacy Law Out of the
Closet: A Tort Theory of Liability for Intrusions in Public Places, 73 N.C. L. Rev. 989,
990, 991 (1995) (“[t]ort law clings stubbornly to the principle that privacy cannot be
invaded in or from a public place. … [a]s interpreted by almost all courts, the tort [of intru-
sion upon seclusion] does not protect persons in places accessible to the public”).
Page 12
130
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
[124 Dauph.
Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.
Our Commonwealth Court recently reiterated this well settled rule
that “[a] defendant is liable for intrusion upon seclusion only when he
intrudes into a private place, or otherwise invades a private seclusion
about a plaintiff’s person or affairs.” DeBlasio v. Pignoli, 918 A.2d
822, 825 (Pa. Commw. 2007) (citing Harris by Harris at 1383). In that
case, the court upheld the dismissal of an intrusion upon seclusion
claim brought by prison inmates where it was alleged that a mayor
watched inmates from his home via surveillance cameras placed in
holding cells. The court held that “regardless of the location of the
viewer, the place being viewed was not private,” and that as such, the
inmates viewed had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 825
(citations omitted).
Although there is no case law in Pennsylvania on point of the level of
privacy to be afforded persons in houses of worship, two cases from
other jurisdictions, persuasive on this issue, identify a house of worship
as a public place. Creel v. I.C.E. & Assoc., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 1276, 1280
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) and Fiorillo v. Berkley Administrators, 2004 Conn.
Super. LEXIS 1210 (Conn. App. 2004) (unreported). In Creel, the court
dismissed plaintiff’s claim that a detective agency invaded her privacy
while conducting a worker’s compensation investigation. Defendant’s
investigator, posing as a worshiper, used a hidden camera to videotape
plaintiff as she played the piano in front of her church congregation. Id.
at 1278. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in defendant’s
favor, holding that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of priva-
cy in her activities when the investigator’s secret videotaping simply
recorded an activity that was open to the public and was observed by the
more than a hundred persons in attendance at the religious service. Id. at
1281. In Fiorillo, an employee seeking workers’ compensation benefits
was placed under surveillance over a 21-month period during which she
was filmed at numerous public places, including entering and exiting her
church. In addition, investigators followed her into the church on two
occasions but did not encounter her. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s
claim for intrusion upon her seclusion since, as a matter of law, the sur-
veillance was limited to observations that took place in public. Id. at *8
(citing Creel). The court stated that there is no intrusion into seclusion
where the matters observed are those “exhibited to the public gaze.” Id.
at *8 (citations omitted).
As set forth above, the law interpreting the Second Restatement tort
of intrusion upon seclusion uniformly holds that if a person is located
in a public space when observed, photographed or filmed, then there is
no cause of action. In addition, even if the person is located in a
Page 13
121 (2009)]
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
131
Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.
private or quasi-private location, if he or she is nevertheless observ-
able to the public, there is no cause of action. Furthermore, a person
litigating a workers’ compensation claim must expect that his or her
claims will be subject to investigation and as such, has a diminished
expectation of privacy.
Plaintiff here was situated in a public place since houses of worship
are places open to the public. As in Creel, the surveillance consisted of
nothing more than observation of plaintiff’s activities plainly visible to
anyone inside the mosque. Under these circumstances, plaintiff could
not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his activities. In addi-
tion, the uncontradicted evidence was that the surveillance consisted of
nothing more than observation of plaintiff’s activities plainly visible
from a public vantage point where Mr. Zeigler was permitted to be. To
the extent defendant Zeigler used his zoom lens from 80 yards away, the
record reveals that that same view was available to the naked eye since
the area immediately surrounding The Islamic Center was accessible to
the public, including a public driveway that led from Carlisle Pike
directly to the front of the building where plaintiff was admittedly stand-
ing next to a lighted window in the evening darkness. Compare
DiGirolamo at *9-10 (court drew a distinction between surveillance of
an otherwise private place (interior of a home) which was observable to
the naked eye versus surveillance of the same place with enhanced
vision, noting the former is not protected while the latter is). Everything
observed through defendant’s video camera was observable to anyone
driving toward the publicly accessible driveway that led to The Islamic
Center. Thus, defendant Zeigler’s observation of plaintiff’s activities
during his legitimate investigation does not constitute an intrusion upon
seclusion as a matter of law. Simply stated, plaintiff had no objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in either a public place and/or in pri-
vate or quasi-private place readily observable from public view.
Even assuming it could be concluded that plaintiff was located in a
private or quasi-private place from which he should have reasonably
expected some level of privacy,
6
defendants’ alleged invasion of this
privacy by videotaping him from afar cannot be considered “highly
offensive” as a matter of law.
6. The Connecticut court suggested in Fiorillo, in dicta, that it might extend the cloak
of privacy to a worshipper attending services who is involved in actual worship or prayer
as against an investigator who follows him or her into the sanctuary. Id. at *11-12 (court
made particular note that at no time did the investigators who followed plaintiff into the
church on two separate occasions intrude into the worship area of the church or the plain-
tiff’s worship or prayer activities).
Page 14
132
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
[124 Dauph.
Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.
Intrusion upon seclusion requires as an element that the intrusion be
“highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 652B. Harris by Harris clarifies that it be highly offensive to the
“ordinary reasonable person.” Id. at 1383-84 (citing Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 652B, comment d). “Conduct that is highly offen-
sive to a reasonable person is conduct that a reasonable person, in simi-
lar circumstances, would find very objectionable or that a reasonable
person in similar circumstances could be expected to take with serious
offense.” DeBlasio at 824-25 (citing Pa. S.S.J.I. (Civ. 13.12) (2005)).
In determining whether an invasion of a privacy inter-
est would be “offensive” to an ordinary, reasonable per-
son, a court should consider all of the circumstances
including “the degree of the intrusion, the context, con-
duct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion as well
as the intruder’s motives and objectives, the setting into
which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose
privacy is invaded.”
Wolfson at 1421 (citation omitted).
The degree of the intrusion here was minimal and of a non-harassing
nature.
7
Plaintiff in fact had no knowledge he was being investigated at
all, much less videotaped. Furthermore, the intrusion occurred within
the context of a reasonable investigation of his workers’ compensation
claim; such investigations have been stamped with an imprimatur of
legitimacy under Pennsylvania law. Forster, supra. While some individ-
uals might expect a certain level of privacy in a house of worship, the
specific intrusion here concerned observation of the plaintiff that any
member of the non-trespassing public could have observed simply by
driving up to the building in which plaintiff was located. As such, a rea-
sonable person videotaped under similar circumstances could not have
considered such conduct “highly offensive” or have taken “serious
offense” to it. DeBlasio at 824-25.
As this record establishes, plaintiff cannot establish that his right to
privacy has been invaded under the facts and circumstances presented.
7. A line of cases recognizes that investigative conduct which amounts to a persistent
course of hounding, harassment and unreasonable surveillance, even if conducted in a pub-
lic or semi-public place, may nevertheless rise to the level of invasion of privacy based on
intrusion upon seclusion. Wolfson v. Lewis, supra at 1419-20 (citing cases). These “harass-
ing investigator cases” are distinguishable from this case since there is no claim here that
the defendants persistently harassed the plaintiff; in fact, plaintiff was unaware of defen-
dants’ surveillance of him.
Page 15
121 (2009)]
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
133
Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.
Defendants are thus entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim
of intrusion upon seclusion.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
In Counts III and IV of the Complaint, plaintiff asserts an abuse of
process claim against the defendants. This tort is defined as “the use of
legal process against another ‘primarily to accomplish a purpose for
which it is not designed.’” Shiner v. Moriarity, 706 A.2d 1228, 1236 (Pa.
Super. 1998) (citations omitted). To establish abuse of process, a plain-
tiff must prove that the defendant (1) used a legal process against the
plaintiff; (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process
was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff. Id.
It is not enough that the defendant had bad or mali-
cious intentions or that the defendant acted from spite
or with an ulterior motive. Rather, there must be an act
or threat not authorized by the process, or the process
must be used for an illegitimate aim such as extortion,
blackmail, or to coerce or compel the plaintiff to take
some collateral action. There is no liability where the
defendant has done nothing more than carry out the
process to its authorized conclusion, even though with
bad intentions.
Al Hamilton Contracting Company v. Cowder, 644 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa.
Super. 1994) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to identify what legal process was used by defen-
dants against plaintiff to accomplish a purpose for which that process
was not designed. The only legal process involving plaintiff concerned
litigation of the workers’ compensation claim; however, the defendants
were not a party to that claim and did not initiate any legal process
against plaintiff.
Plaintiff suggests that the surveillance conducted by the defendants
as part of the litigation of that claim amounted to a perversion of the
workers’ compensation process wherein the videotape taken of plain-
tiff at worship had no probative value with respect to disproving his
claim of a hand and arm injury. “Process” as defined in an abuse of
process claim “has been interpreted broadly, and encompasses the
entire range of procedures incident to the litigation process,” includ-
ing such matters as discovery proceedings, the noticing of depositions
and the issuing of subpoenas. Rosen v. American Bank, 627 A.2d 190,
192 (Pa.Super. 1993) (citation omitted). Even assuming that the
Page 16
134
DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS
[124 Dauph.
Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., et al.
defendants’ surveillance could be considered “process” encompassed
within the workers’ compensation claim, the abuse of process asser-
tion would still fail since there was no abuse here; the surveillance of
a workers’ compensation claimant was undertaken for the purpose for
which it was designed. Defendants’ surveillance did nothing more
than carry out the workers’ compensation process to its authorized
conclusion. Al Hamilton Contracting, supra. The use of surveillance
by the insurance and litigation defense industries to counter fraud has
long been accepted as a legitimate enterprise under Pennsylvania law.
See, Forster, supra. As such, plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed.
Accordingly, this court enters the following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2009, following this court’s review
of the parties’cross motions for summary judgment, the relevant record,
the parties’briefs and following oral argument thereon, this court directs
that Defendants’Motion is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint
is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

Insurance fraud is now estimated to cost insurers £5.2million every day, according to a report published by the Association of British Insurers.

But the figures released by ABI show that insurers are now fighting back against fraudulent claims with £730million of frauds being detected and prevented last year, which is a 30 per cent increase on 2007.

Many fraudulent claims though are still going undetected costing insurers £1.9 billion, this is a 24 per cent rise compared to £1.6billion two years ago.

As a result of these fraudulent claims, every household’s general insurance costs have risen by £44.

Haverhill, Mass — Four firefighters will be suspended for five days after they were videotaped by a private investigator performing strenuous activities while out sick from their city jobs.
The private eye videotaped the firefighters who called in sick in December and shows the firefighters moving furniture, climbing a ladder, and shoveling and plowing snow. One firefighter was filmed at a hockey game and another shopping. Full story

Houston is number 1 in Texas for the number of questionable insurance claims reported and number 4 in the nation for staged accidents.

It is estimated that fraud cost the insurance industry more than $80 billion dollars a year.

Matthew Perrone has published an artilce on this topic through the Associated Press.

Congressional investigators said Wednesday two-thirds of the U.S. health insurance industry used a faulty database that overcharged patients for seeing doctors outside their insurance network, costing Americans billions of dollars in inflated medical bills.

The flawed database is operated by Ingenix, a subsidiary of health insurer UnitedHealth Group, which agreed in January to pay $350 million to settle allegations that it deliberately kept rates low to underpay doctors, driving up expenses for patients.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, the National Insurance Crime Bureau and other organizations oppose California\’s plan to reclassify most insurance-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. In a joint letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the groups said such crimes merit \”serious consequences\” and warned that reducing penalties could lure organized fraud groups to operate in the state.

By Mike Cronin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, January 2, 2008

So Allegheny County police accuse a McKeesport couple of swindling three car insurance companies out of roughly $20,000.

Who cares?

Everyone should, says Ralph Burnham, executive director of the Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority.

\”It\’s a crime we all pay for, because the losses incurred by insurance companies eventually are passed on to our premiums,\” Burnham said from his Mechanicsburg office. \”Fraud jacks up the cost of our insurance. When fraud happens, everyone loses.\”

Such fraud increases the average Pennsylvania family\’s insurance bill by $300, the authority states.

To keep those costs from rising any higher, Burnham and law enforcement officers throughout the state publicize high-profile insurance fraud cases. Allegheny County police Detective Thomas Capp said he and his colleagues hope to reduce the incidence of insurance fraud by increasing awareness.

From 1996 to 2006, agencies funded by the prevention authority convicted 2,272 people of fraud. Statistics for 2007 won\’t be available until later this month, but state authorities convicted 441 individuals last year for insurance fraud.

Two Allegheny cases appear in this year\’s \”Unlucky 13\” list of Pennsylvania\’s most memorable and outrageous cases, which the prevention authority releases annually. In addition to the McKeesport couple, the group cited a case involving seven county residents who were convicted of filling more than $70,000 worth of phony prescriptions for painkillers.

\”People are aware of things like homicides and drug cases, while fraud and other white-collar crimes are kind of put aside,\” Capp said. \”But it\’s mind-boggling how much of it is out there.\”

Many perpetrators attempt to remain hidden by collecting a few thousand dollars for each scam, Capp said.

McKeesport\’s Jason Belyeu, 27, and his wife Cheri McDonnell, 27, face multiple felony charges for claiming up to $2,500 per fabricated accident, Capp said.

Neither Belyeu\’s attorney, Alonzo Burney of McKeesport, nor McDonnell\’s attorney, Leo C. Harper Jr. of Uptown, could be reached for comment.

Their scheme, Capp said, worked like this: Every three weeks or so, between Sept. 19, 2005, and March 30, 2006, a woman would claim responsibility for hitting a parked, unoccupied car. Each time, Progressive, Nationwide or Safe Auto insurance companies sent a check to pay for damages to Belyeu, Capp said.

Belyeu persuaded a number of women to pretend they hit his car and admit fault, and he would pay them, Capp said.

The scheme raised suspicion when McDonnell bought a policy from Progressive using the name of a female tenant renting one of Belyeu\’s properties. That woman called a Progressive agent after receiving some mail and requested an investigation, Capp said.

After hundreds of hours combing records, law enforcement officials arrested Belyeu in March, Capp said. He was charged with five counts of insurance fraud, five counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and three counts of identity theft, Capp said.

McDonnell faces more than 21 years in jail for three counts of insurance fraud, three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and three counts of identity theft.

Belyeu faces more than 35 years in jail if convicted, Capp said.

They are scheduled to stand trial March 3 before Common Pleas Judge Randal Todd.

\”We want to educate folks across Pennsylvania that this is something that happens in their communities,\” Burnham said. \”We want people to report it.\”

Mike Cronin can be reached at mcronin@tribweb.com or 412-320-7884.
Back to headlines

MUNCIE — Kenneth Allen, his sister, Vanessa Allen Hatcher, and others are accused of setting a series of house fires in a large-scale arson-for-insurance scheme.

More than a dozen suspects, including private insurance adjuster Douglas Haynes, have been charged with arson or using arson to commit mail fraud.

The scheme involved dozens of homes in Muncie, Anderson and Indianapolis and millions of dollars in fraudulent insurance settlements. A Nationwide Insurance investigator helped tip local and federal authorities to the scheme in an investigation that took nearly two years.

Allen, who has cocaine-dealing convictions, allegedly conspired with Haynes to defraud insurance companies by burning homes and collecting insurance settlements, according to a federal indictment. Haynes allegedly was involved with about 90 percent of claims.

Hatcher, 47, was identified as the main arsonist in the latest federal indictment this month, which alleged she set or arranged fires for more than 20 homes in Indiana and Ohio.

Muncie Police Lt. Al Williams led the local investigation, which also involved federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents.

The Muncie Fire Department responded to every arson-for-insurance fire, but found most to be accidental. That was because the fires were made to look accidental by such means as putting blankets on space heaters, using candles or overloading electrical circuits.

Allen, Hatcher and others indicted by a federal grand jury are expected to cut deals with the U.S. Attorney\’s office next month. Others face state charges in Delaware County courts.

The executive director of the North Dakota State Workers\’ Compensation agency and an agency investigator were released after their first court appearances last week on felony charges involving questionable spending and possible illegal use of driver\’s license photos.
Advertisement
Tough Placement? Ask your broker for the answer from James River Insurance Company.

Workforce Safety and Insurance Executive Director Sandy Blunt is charged with two counts of misapplication of entrusted property, and he and Romi Leingang, WSI fraud investigator, are charged with conspiracy to disclose confidential information.

South Central District Judge Robert Wefald released Blunt and Leingang after their appearances on May 30th, pending future hearings. A preliminary hearing date was not immediately set.

Assistant State\’s Attorney Cynthia Feland asked the two be released on a personal recognizance bond, saying she does not see either as a flight risk.

The misapplication charges stem from an audit of Workforce Safety and Insurance that found more than $18,000 in questionable spending on restaurant gift certificates and cards, and expenses for gifts from a shopping mall and lunch for state legislators.

The conspiracy charges involve what auditors said was improper use of state driver\’s license photos, which are confidential records under state law. WSI investigators allegedly used photos to try to track down an employee who was e-mailing agency salary information to the press and others. The salary information is public record.

Attorneys for Blunt and Leingang have said they will plead not guilty. Both are on paid administrative leave from the workers\’ compensation agency, which provides medical, wage and rehabilitation benefits for employees who are injured on the job.

Leingang\’s attorney, Tim Purdon, asked Wefald to set aside an entire day for the preliminary hearing, which will determine if there is enough evidence to take the case to trial.

\”Our goal at the preliminary hearing will be to have the charges dismissed,\’\’ Purdon said.

He objected to media cameras and microphones at the hearing. Wefald overruled the objection, but Purdon said he may raise it again later.

The charges against Blunt, two counts of misapplication of entrusted property and one count of conspiracy to commit disclosure of confidential information, together carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The charge against Leingang carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

VISALIA
California

More than 60 men and women have been swept up in a five-county dragnet across the Central Valley on insurance fraud and related charges.

\”Today\’s arrests have dealt a death blow to these elaborately organized schemes. By working together, we\’ve crippled their ability to continue their concerted rip-off of the system,\” says California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

The arrests were made in Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno and Merced counties.

The crimes include:

• Fraudulent insurance claims for aftermarket stereo equipment, custom wheels and tires, and performance parts.

• Organized automobile insurance fraud rings which involved vehicles that were set afire by either the owner or associates in an attempt to destroy the vehicle beyond repair and dispose of any evidence.

• There were six cases involving family members or close friends who conspired to dispose of their vehicles to collect insurance benefits to which they were not entitled, or conceal the identity of an excluded driver to obtain insurance benefits.

• Workers\’ compensation insurance premium fraud.

\”The large number of suspects arrested is indicative of the magnitude of insurance fraud. It concerns me to see our citizens paying higher premiums and increased consumer prices due to criminals taking advantage of the insurance system,” says Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth Egan.

Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse II adds, \”The scope of this investigation underscores the regional nature of organized insurance fraud activities. test viagra tinc tinc viagralolspistols ”

ALBANY — County Judge Stephen W. Herrick this morning accused the central witness in a mammoth insurance fraud case of lying on the stand and creating a situation where the jury discredited everything he said.

While Herrick said he believed Willie Cook testified “substantially truthfully\’\’ over the course of the trial, he cited two lies he believes the man told. While tangential to the charges in the case, the lies he said still destroyed the jury\’s ability to take his testimony seriously.

“The relevance of this is that the jury believed that you were a liar,\’\’ Herrick said, adding later, “All twelve of them totally discredited you.\’\’

The judge\’s statements came as Herrick was poised to sentence Cook according to a plea deal he struck months ago, agreeing to testify against several members of the Houghtaling family in exchange for the promise of no additional jail time.

Cook, a close Houghtaling family friend, was one of eight people and the only non-Houghtaling implicated in the scheme, which prosecutors likened to suburban organized crime and said staged more than 20 car wrecks to reap the insurance money.

Cook pleaded guilty in March and ultimately testified against his alleged former confederates in a trial that lasted 11 weeks and ended with one dismissal, three acquittals, two felony convictions and a courthouse suicide bid by one of the alleged ringleaders.

But as Cook, 36, stood before the judge this morning, Herrick cited two instances where he believed other evidence directly contradicted Cook\’s testimony.

Ultimately, Herrick allowed Cook to withdraw his guilty plea to felony insurance fraud, as planned in the plea deal. Cook then pleaded guilty to misdemeanor petty larceny. But rather than sentence the man to time served, Herrick sentenced him to a year in the Albany County jail. Herrick said Cook will still get credit for time already served and called the sentence a “modest additional period of incarceration.\’\’

Cook was handcuffed and lead away in the custody of Albany County Sheriff\’s Deputies.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007
THE SAGINAW NEWS

MIDLAND — A Midland County chiropractor is facing fraud charges.

Court authorities on Friday arraigned Frederick Knochel on six counts of insurance fraud, said State Police Trooper Dave Rivard of the Bay City Post.

Post detectives and investigators for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan conducted a six-month investigation into allegations the chiropractor submitted false insurance claims to the health insurance company, Rivard said.

Knochel\’s office is at 2525 Washington in Midland.

Rivard said investigators continue to look for \”anyone who has ever been a patient of Knochel and noticed a discrepancy in their explanation of benefits.\”

Patients with suspicions should call the post at (989) 684-2234

The head of North Dakota\’s workers compensation agency and the agency\’s top investigator should be suspended from their jobs.

That\’s the opinion of Governor John Hoeven after today\’s news that the head of what\’s called the Workforce Safety and Insurance agency and its top fraud investigator have been charged with felonies.

Director Sandy Blunt and investigator Romi Leingang were to focus of an audit which found improper activities.

Governor Hoeven says until a full investigation has been completed, the two should not be fired.

Brad Feldman has more on today\’s developments…

Sandy Blunt is the executive director of Workforce Safety and Insurance. Now, he is listed as the defendant on three criminal complaints. Blunt is charged with two counts of misapplication of entrusted property. The first count, a Class B felony, accuses Blunt of spending WSI money on things outside of the agencies interest.

(Richard Riha, Burleigh County State\’s Attorney) \”An example would be you know gift certificates to restaurants.\”

The second count, a class C felony, deals with bonuses given to WSI employees.

(Riha) \”There is a statutory limit on bonuses for employees and our allegation there is that was improperly done.\”

In addition, Blunt and co-worker Romi Leingang are charged with conspiracy to commit disclosure of confidential information.

(Riha) \”It essentially involves drivers license photos that were released to people that shouldn\’t have been and that is confidential information.\”

The attorney representing Romi Leingang, Tim Purdon, says they are disappointed with the states attorneys office.

(Tim Purdon, Leingang\’s Attorney) \”Romi in this case is basically just an employee who is basically following orders from her superiors and I think when the facts come out the decision will be that she actually violated no laws.\”

No matter the involvement, the case is now in the courts hands. The legal process will play out and determine who, if anyone is guilty of the charges. Brad Feldman, KX News

If convicted of the charges, Blunt faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of 20-thousand dollars.

Leingang faces a maximum of five years in prison and a 5-thousand dollar fine.

SAGINAW — A judge ruled Thursday that there is enough evidence for a former mayor charged with arson and insurance fraud in the burning of her 1986 Mercedes-Benz to stand trial in the case.

Wilmer Jones Ham, who serves on the City Council and as mayor pro tem, was bound over for trial in Saginaw County Circuit Court. The date for her next court appearance wasn\’t immediately set.

Wilmer Jones Ham is the mother of ex-Detroit Pistons player Darvin Ham. She has pleaded not guilty.

Wilmer Jones Ham is accused of setting the car on fire March 9, 2006, and trying to make a false insurance claim.

She remains free on a $15,000 personal bond.

California\’s insurance fraud bureau leads the nation in criminal convictions with more than a third of all convictions generated by those state agencies across the U.S., according to a study released Thursday.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud said the study is a barometer of the nation\’s annual progress against insurance fraud, which mounts up to $80 million annually.

The results were compiled from official figures reported by the 47 state fraud bureaus, and showed California\’s fraud bureau unit logged 1,546 criminal convictions in 2005. Second was Florida with 493 convictions.

California leads the nation with 27,687 case leads the fraud unit received in 2005, the study said, slightly ahead of New York, which received nearly 26,000 leads. Leads come from a variety of sources such as insurance companies, local law enforcement, calls to the fraud hotline, and leads the fraud unit\’s own investigators uncover.

California ranks second in cases it presented for potential criminal prosecution. Its 754 cases stand slightly behind Florida with 773 for 2005.

California\’s fraud bureau brings more resources to the fraud fight than any other state, the study said. The unit\’s top-ranked $36.8 million budget in 2006 was well ahead of New Jersey\’s, which came in next with $29.7 million.

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud is a nonprofit alliance of consumer groups, insurers and government agencies combating all forms of insurance fraud.

San Jose Business Journal

March 27, 2007 – Phoenix, Ariz. – Insurance industry groups have banded together to create eight data initiatives and a central data repository to combat fraud, according to the keynote speaker at an industrywide meeting here of property/casualty claims and special investigations executives.

The initiatives are designed to improve data collection, data sharing and data analytics through the ISO ClaimSearch all-claims database, said Susan Q. Hood, claims vice president for Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm Insurance Cos. and chairperson of an industry fraud data working group. Her remarks came at the 2007 Insurance Fraud Management Conference.

“Fraud is a huge problem, costing the insurance industry over $30 billion a year, and these initiatives will help the industry to better combat it,” Hood said.

The initiatives have been developed by a fraud data working group with members from insurance companies the Palos Hills, Ill.-based National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) and ISO Properties Inc., a Jersey City, N.J., provider of products and services intended to reduce risk. The aim is to make ISO\’s all-claims database a central repository for claims and fraud data.

“The specific initiatives will provide more actionable information for special investigations units and NICB investigators to improve their ability to identify fraudulent claims,” Hood told conference attendees.

The eight initiatives include revising reporting formats to and from ISO, adding optional data fields to the ISO database, changing the process for submitting questionable claims through ISO ClaimSearch to the NICB, and creating the ability to extract and sort data.

The initiatives will promote best practices and protocols for insurers’ timely and accurate submission of fraud-related data, says Richard Boehning, senior vice president of ISO.

“A number of the changes will affect the data that companies can submit and the data we can return for claims investigation,” Boehning said. “It will be important for companies to develop internal plans to adapt to the changes in order to capture the value intended.”

ISO and NICB sponsor the annual conference.

Liberty NY – Two police officers have been arrested and charged with having the same person wreck their vehicles to collect insurance money.

In one case, State Police at Liberty allege that William Kloss, III torched a 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 pickup truck for Edward Kowalik, Jr. Kowalik is a police officer with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Police. Kowalik was having trouble making truck payments. He was charged with arson and insurance fraud.

Kloss was charged with torching the truck on February 26, 2007.

The investigation also revealed that on January 19, Kloss drove a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee and staged an accident so the vehicle’s owner, Amanda Cox, would make an insurance claim. Cox is a corporal with the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office. She was arrested and charged with insurance fraud. She has also been suspended from the sheriff’s office pending further administrative action.

Cox, 25, who is a 3 ½ year member of the sheriff’s office, was recently promoted to the rank of corporal from deputy.

Sheriff Michael Schiff said the alleged incident took place while Cox was off-duty. “The results of this investigation were totally unexpected,” he said.

The investigation into the insurance scam operation could also potentially implicate a member of the Town of Fallsburg Police Department. That case is under investigation as well.

Police also learned that Kloss was allegedly involved in a staged accident March 2004 where he drove a 1994 Toyota pickup truck, owned by Michael Brooks of Jeffersonville, into a tree. Brooks collected insurance money for that.

Kloss was charged with arson with other charges expected, police said.

TORONTO, Feb. 21 /CNW/ – It\’s awards season, so to recognize the worst performances by scam artists in 2006, Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) presents the first-annual Scam-ademy Awards. There\’s no glitz, no glamour and no red carpet. And the winners are, in fact, losers who tried to cheat Canadian insurance companies and their customers – and got caught.
According to Rick Dubin, Vice-President, Investigations, IBC, insurance fraud and auto theft are serious and costly crimes that make victims of us all. \”Criminal greed costs honest Canadian policyholders about $3 billion a year,\” says Dubin. \”But sometimes fraud artists deliver performances that are so brazen and so dumb that they warrant some kind of recognition.\”

The Fraudster Award for Worst Picture goes to \”Around the World in 80 Cars\”, an epic scam that stretched from Canada to the Middle East. These audacious fraud artists were not only car thieves, they were identity thieves as well. They created a string of false identities and fake credit reports, and used them to lease over 80 high end cars. The cars were then packed up and shipped to buyers in countries throughout the Middle East. After the cars had
sailed away, the gang tried to report some of them stolen in an attempt to collect on the insurance as well. The trail of fake paperwork led to seven suspects. As the credits rolled, five men were facing charges and arrest warrants had been issued for the other two.

Our next category is for the Worst Performance by Actors in Supporting Roles. And the Fraudster goes to \”Same Time Next Week\”. This cast of characters had a lot in common as they tried to cheat the system. They all appeared to be lousy drivers, they all drove rental cars and, most amazingly, they always crashed at the same time of day and the same day of the week. They did it once and then went on to produce 11 sequels. tinci vinci test1 trali vali They all had the same
plot. One car with 2 people in it hit another car with 3 or 4 in it. They all used the same paralegals and went to the same clinics for treatment as they tried to bilk insurers with false claims. But there was no happy ending for this cast. Insurers caught on. Claims denied.

In the Worst Documentary category, the Fraudster goes to \”Your Pink Slip Is Showing\”. It turns out the \”documents\” in this documentary were forge eto mi ne test2 proxodili d. It\’s the story of a rental car operation that gave forged pink slips to its customers as proof of insurance. The boss was busted but then she changed the company\’s name and tried the same thing again. This time she got real pink slips for her fleet only she didn\’t pay the premiums, and kept using them even after the policy was cancelled for non-payment. This encore performance had a
similar ending – the company has been shut down and the case is in the hands of police. As for our star, she may soon be trading in pink for orange.

For the Worst Foreign Production, the Fraudster goes to \”Lost and Found in Mexico\” – the epic journey of a stray SUV. Two men got their hands on a Hummer that was stolen in Ontario, then they high tailed it to Mexico and acquired insurance from a Mexican insurer. One of the men reported to police in Cancun that it was stolen and filed an insurance claim. Meanwhile his partner had the vehicle in Acapulco. The police weren\’t fooled and the two men
were busted for possessing stolen property and filing a false insurance claim. They\’re now facing charges in Mexico and the Hummer is back home north of the Rio Grande.

The Fraudster for Worst Achievement in Special Effects goes to \”Two Places at Once\”, the eye popping story of a chiropractor with a phantom double. The mystery began when the chiropractor said goodbye to the Ontario clinic where he worked and moved to the U.S. Or did he? Apparently he continued to stay busy at the Ontario clinic. Very busy, in fact, as his name
and credentials continued to appear in many of the clinic\’s reports and invoices submitted to insurance companies. The chiropractor was very surprised to hear the news when investigators contacted him in the U.S. It turns out computer generated effects were used to pull off this fraudulent illusion. The case of the double dealing clinic has been turned over to authorities for investigation.

The Fraudster for Worst Director goes to the not quite a genius behind \”The Careless Collector\” – the story of a man who was in love with vintage sports cars but just couldn\’t seem to keep track of them. It began when he filed a claim with his insurance company reporting that his beloved classic Corvette had been stolen. The company noticed that this was the third time in six years that the man was reporting a car theft. The other two were a vintage
Porsche and and a Mercedes. So an investigator decided to pay the man a visit and discovered that his small, residential property was filled with stolen cars and car parts. A search revealed that he had some of the cars he had reported stolen as well as others. In a final twist, one of them was another Corvette that had been stolen from an NFL player 14 years ago in the U.S. The ending of this epic is being written by eto nam test3 ne zadavali a U.S. judge.

For further information: or to schedule an interview with Rick Dubin, please contact: Ellen Woodger at (416) 483-2358, (ellen.woodger@sympatico.ca)

By Arkansas Business Staff
2/14/2007 3:54:09 PM

Arkansas State Insurance Commissioner Julie Benafield Bowman said Wednesday that a suspected insurance fraud ringleader, Frederick Watson, has turned himself in to Little Rock Police.

The state Insurance Department said Watson is alleged to have masterminded a car crash ring operation that defrauded insurance companies of hundreds of thousands of dollars over 12 years.

Among his alleged accomplices were his cousin, Mark Watson, and Rebekah Rahn, both of whom were arrested Monday.

Bowman said investigators from the department’s Criminal Investigation Division began looking into the case after an adjuster with an insurance company said she thought one of her clients had been intentionally crashed into while driving.

\”A common thread soon began to emerge as the department looked at police accident reports,\” Bowman said in a news release. \”The investigators began to see the same vehicle involved in more than one accident and similar names for drivers involved.

Watson and others in the ring are alleged to have staged more than 40 accidents during their years of operation, choosing targets as they left driveways or traveled through intersections. Some crashes caused injuries.