Arson, Insurance, and Ethics Questioned in Phoenix
A story posted yesterday on AZCentral.com raises some troubling ethical questions about the involvement of insurance company investigators in fire investigations conducted by public fire officials. Historically, insurance companies have routinely cooperated with public fire investigations, offering expertise and resources not available to public sector fire investigators.
Could that level of cooperation be coming to an end? Could it jeopardize the criminal prosecution of arsonists? That is one implication of an in depth article written by Wendy Halloran on the case of Barbara Sloan, who was charged with arson by the Phoenix Fire Department in 2009.
Among the questions raised: what happens when an insurance company representative’s annual bonus hinges on a certain claim being denied due to a fire being determined to have been set by the insured? Might that bonus be incentive enough to bias the insurance representative (adjuster, agent, or investigator), or pressure others to change their opinions about how a fire started? And might it influence the level of assistance the insurance company renders to a local fire investigator in a given case?
Probably the most troubling question posed by the Halloran article: might an insurance company’s investigator provide evidence to public fire investigators that incriminates an insured of arson while simultaneously concealing exculpatory evidence?
The AZCentral article is worth the read. While I disagree with the implication that insurers should be prohibited from cooperating with public fire officials and sharing information, it would seem to me that some ethical guidelines need to be considered.
As an initial thought, any exculpatory evidence in the possession of a cooperating insurer should be required to be produced. PERIOD. END OF STORY. After all, an insured pays a premium to an insurer and is entitled to the insurer honoring the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is hard to consider a more glaring example of bad faith by an insurer, than conducting an investigation seeking to find incriminating evidence against the insured so as to be able to deny the claim, finding instead exculpatory evidence, and then concealing that exculpatory evidence.
You certainly give insurance companies more credit for acting in good faith than most people. I used to live in CT — “the insurance capitol of the world” — and stories of bad-faith dealings were endemic.
A number of years ago, the IAAI did a long piece on bad-faith claims in Canada, and if you Google “bad-faith fire insurance,” you get over 1.1 MILLION hits, including a list of bad-faith insurance companies (Allstate, State Farm, The Hartford, Unum, Farmer’s, Lloyd’s, MetLife, Liberty Mutual, American Family, and Auto-Owners are the Top Ten bad boys). IAAI had, at one point, an on-line training program that seemed to show insurance adjustors what to look for to invaildate claims (rather than how to conduct an impartial investigation).
A former municipal investigator I knew retired and went private-sector, but retired completely after less than a year, citing the insurance companies’ demands that he find ways — legitimate or otherwise — to deny claims, as demonstrated by Farmer’s “strategy” in the linked article: “If Sloan took the Fifth at her examination under oath, Farmers would say that was lack of cooperation under the insurance policy and deny the claim. If she ended up taking a plea bargain, then that would be a basis to deny the claim. If she went to trial and lost, that too would be a basis to deny the claim.”
There is a reason insurance companies are trusted as much as politicians and used car salesmen… they’re ALL crooks.
It’s clearly evident that the fire investigators were lying, but “covered ” their rear ends
By claiming “lack of training”.
In 2009 and before, they could have looked up additional outside training for their jobs as Fire Investigators, at the NFA or in a California and Nevada but it appears that they didn’t.
Net result, they were so consumed by their “ignorance” or lack of training that they ” framed” the victim.
Now, is this where “Governmental immunity” protects theses two “bozo’s” jobs as firefighters, because they only worked with information that they were trained with part of which could have been “junk science” that fire investigators were taught many years ago and they didn’t get the updated information?
Either way, it makes the IAAI not look good. Either these two went to their meetings and slept through any update classes thus not learning any new changes in fire investigation techniques or the IAAI has been “outed” as an ineffectual “Social Club Meeting” and provides no new information other than through their Social hour at the end of the day aka”Beer Call”.
And then again, what of the other cases these two have participated in investigating and the harm they may have caused?
You have the San Francisco PD investigating officers for anti gay and racial statements via MDT possibly harming hundreds of previous arrests
I hope a cause of action can be brought against them and the PFD for this.
Of course, I wonder is this one reason why former Phoenix Chief Bob Kahn retired.
Compared to a Chief Brunanici, he wasn’t in office that long, about three or four years I think