Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I would argue ... do the audit.  If 10% or less are questionable, move on.  10 - 20% ... tough conversation.  20% or more ... we need to stop and audit all.  

Remember, the insurers are not hiding the fact that they include time-barred claims in the “invalid” category. It is right there in black and white. They’ve beaten that drum harder and louder as this has gone forward. What’s that, 59,000 or some such? I try not to remember the number, frankly. 

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Remember, the insurers are not hiding the fact that they include time-barred claims in the “invalid” category. It is right there in black and white. They’ve beaten that drum harder and louder as this has gone forward. What’s that, 59,000 or some such? I try not to remember the number, frankly. 

To me, I would not include those in the false claim category and clearly no audit is needed for those.  

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Wasn't there a hearing today?  Outside the August 30 hearing details was there any decisions?

It was listed as a hearing on a pro hac vice motion filed a year ago. Either Omni glitched or the judge just had a hearing on the motion which lasted .5 seconds since no one objects to these things.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

What would the standards be for a fraudulent/false claim?

Maybe CS would cut and paste from the discovery motion. They don’t make any bones about facially defective claims (lacking critical details), those found to be fraudulently filed (outright lies, critically contradictory assertions...shown by some research they’ve done or will do), filed/signed improperly (however that gets defined). Time-barred being its own category of “invalid” on its face, per the insurers. 

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I would not include those in the false claim category and clearly no audit is needed for those.  

Right. That’s why I used “invalid.”

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It was listed as a hearing on a pro hac vice motion filed a year ago. Either Omni glitched or the judge just had a hearing on the motion which lasted .5 seconds since no one objects to these things.

Glitch confirmed. 

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Maybe CS would cut and paste from the discovery motion. They don’t make any bones about facially defective claims (lacking critical details), those found to be fraudulently filed (outright lies, critically contradictory assertions...shown by some research they’ve done or will do), filed/signed improperly (however that gets defined). Time-barred being its own category of “invalid” on its face, per the insurers. 

Time barred is not fraud or false. the only reason to investigate the claims would be to delay the process.  I am sure that the cost of setting standards (legal wrangling means more BSA spends on legal fees) would cost millions and than fighting every motion put forward by the insurance company's (more wrangling and more fees) counter motions by every lawyer who feels there clients claim was deemed fraudulent (more wrangling and more fees) etc. etc. Then you have the actual time that all this would take and bingo insurance company's win again.  Not counting the mental anguish to all other claimants.  I read over the investigators report and I very much doubt that the fact you may have a burglary or assault conviction on your file means that it is a false claim.  

I might add that having a social media presence where you appear to have a happy married life very much does not indicate what really happens in ones real life. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Time barred is not fraud or false.

Again, I didn’t say that and put it in a separate category. My point was they want to go after ALL of it. Invalid...

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I very much doubt that the fact you may have a burglary or assault conviction on your file means that it is a false claim.  

Agreed. It’s actually contradictory to the science and the POC which asks about trouble with the law as a (potential) direct consequence of the abuse. That’s why it was a question in the Official POC.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Again, I didn’t say that and put it in a separate category. My point was they want to go after ALL of it. Invalid...

I just wanted to reiterate that for you.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

1. Has a court-approved vetting procedure been established? (IMHO, the court and all sides should have done this BEFORE claims were taken!)

2. If so, what percentage of the 80+ thousand claims have been vetted and declared legit so far?

And the answers are:

1. Nope.

2. Zero. Well, sorta. Remember the original claims number was at or near 90,000. One of the reasons: some victims filed multiple claims. So, there was at least a partial vetting, but that's it.

[CynicalScouter]

39 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think it could be appropriate for the judge to allow a vetting of a sufficient number of claims to determine a failure rate with a reasonable confidence interval.  Perhaps that is 1,400 ... not sure and its Friday and I don't care to break out my statistics book.  It could be a random sample by a 3rd party.  There should be a time limit (perhaps 1 - 2 months).  My concern though, If there is a substantial rate of issues, then what?  Are we going to wait 6 months to clean up the list?  

Hartford and Century hired a statistician to come up with a "Sample Claimants" of claims.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

Quote

39. Hartford and Century seek to serve interrogatories and document requests set forth  in Exhibit B on the holders of approximately 1,400 filed proofs of claim identified in Exhibit C, which comprise slightly more than one percent of the total number of filed proofs of claim, to determine whether the underlying Abuse Claims are invalid. The claimants identified in Exhibit C were selected by Hartford’s economic consultant, Denise Neumann Martin, Ph.D. of NERA, who designed a sample of claims from which statistically significant inferences can be drawn concerning the entire claim population.34

 

34 The methodology used to draw the sample is described in the accompanying declaration of Denise NeumannMartin, a principal at NERA at ¶¶ 3-7.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

One of the reasons: some victims filed multiple claims.

One fella filed 13, as it was told to me. That defines thorough, manic or faulty short-term memory. Or, intentionally on purpose to maximize potential return, like buying a bunch of raffle tickets, maybe? 

[CynicalScouter]

44 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

What would the standards be for a fraudulent/false claim?

There's two (and a half) levels here and gets into the difference between false and invalid.

I am NOT a lawyer so @ThenNowtell me if I err here.

1) Prima facie: Is there enough evidence to even GENERALLY support the claim at all such that the BSA or the judge or the settlement trustee has enough evidence to proceed? This would get a lot of "invalid" claims. Remember: due process works both ways. If the victim wants to have his claim accepted, there has to be a minimum of evidence. NORMALLY the Proof of Claim meets that prima facie case, but the insurers have indicated based on the amount of fraud in collecting and signing these things by the claims aggregators/their attorneys that the presumption of prima facie validity is waived.

2) Sufficient to prove a claim: and here we'll get into fights about what standard but GENERALLY in civil cases it is a preponderance of evidence. That "burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true." Insurance companies will want a higher standard like "clear and convincing evidence. ("This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true.") How "substantial" is "substantial"? There's literally VOLUMES of books written on this. It's nebulous.

The inability to prove a claim does NOT mean it is a fraud. It just makes it "invalid" for purposes of a claim,

3) Sufficient to DISprove a claim: Raw fraud. Evidence demonstrating the claimant perpetrated a fraud, etc. This is a fraudulent/fraud. GENERALLY courts do NOT like getting into fights about whether what a witness said or what a person said was fraudulent because then you have to prove that a) the statement's false AND b) the person making the statement did so WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD. Much easier to simply dump into category #2: Insufficient to prove the claim. That rejects it without calling someone a flat out liar.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

One fella filed 13, as it was told to me. That defines thorough, manic or faulty short-term memory. Or, intentionally on purpose to maximize potential return, like buying a bunch of raffle tickets, maybe? 

One victim I know the instance: he was abused by two people. He filed twice because he thought that was what he was supposed to do. Also it is possible that some of these claims were PER OCCURRENCE.

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Also it is possible that some of these claims were PER OCCURRENCE.

As I recall, not with Lucky #13, but I was more going for a moment of levity than any direct challenge to duplicative filings.