insurance2

When it comes to insurance, there are many questions that must be asked:

Do law firms that attempt to force private settlements out of court not become party to fraud as industry-wide issues are hidden from the public and homes are allowed to be sold and mortgaged and insured for more than they are worth?

Do courts that refuse to hear the issues in such matters of industry-wide problems and especially in matters of public safety become party to fraud and the violation of fundamental rights of the population?

Whose DUTY is it to INFORM the public, the homeowners, the banks, the insurers of such industry-wide public safety issues in the truss and building industry! Is disclosure of "material facts" a ONE-WAY responsibility or do insurers who become aware of such issues have a DUTY to disclose them to insureds?

4. Do insurers always need to be brought in or can defendents (i.e., municipalities, designers, engineers, truss manufacturers, software makers, etc.) simply "pay the price" and leave insurers in the dark and/or out of it completely? Do defendents in such claims not have a DUTY to society and to the insurance industry and does leaving insurance companies "out of it" not help promote insurance fraud?

Are laws REALLY there to prevent insurance FRAUD or just insurance LOSS? Clearly, there is a HUGE difference between the two!

Is MONEY the ONLY thing that matters in "a settlement" or should courts be looking for what is in the PUBLIC INTEREST and looking to ensure PUBLIC SAFETY?

7. Whose Job Is It Anyway? That is the ONE question that in spite of my numerous letters, I have yet to have answered in these matters of public safety... whose job is it to "disclose the issues to the public" and to make sure the issues are actually addressed!

... and on and on and on and on and on...