Lloyd’s Brand and Public Adjuster Ethics | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog

If the facts are true, a lawsuit filed by Lloyd’s America against a Texas public adjuster1 will be placed in the “Truth is Stranger Than Fiction” category.

Before embarking on the Lloyd’s trial, I presented an ethics course for the California Association of Public Insurance Adjusters (CAPIA) Tuesday. One of the main points made was that California requires insurance adjusters to conduct themselves in the public interest. This public interest requirement is found in virtually every state and in every license involving insurance. Insurance is a highly regulated product because it serves public trust. Those licensed by a state must first comply with rules that support trust in the insurance industry.

The Insurance School is an excellent school that helps public adjusters prepare for licensing exams. A Texas study guide notes:

A code of ethics for public claims adjusters that promotes the training of public claims adjusters regarding the ethical, legal and business principles that should govern their conduct;

Texas has adopted a Public Adjuster Code of Ethics to emphasize that legal and ethical considerations are of paramount importance to the professional conduct of public adjusters. However, this code of ethics is not intended to exhaust the legal or ethical requirements that govern public claims adjusters. The Texas Public Insurance Adjusters Code of Ethics is similar to the codes of ethics adopted by local and national professional organizations of public insurance adjusters.

Licensees must conduct their business fairly with their customers, insurance companies and the public.

The Texas public adjuster in question, Eric Ramirez, has an impressive resume on his website. This apparently shows someone with credentials and experience who could be an excellent public adjuster. He even mentions instances where he testified as an expert witness.

All this will be lost if the facts of Lloyd’s lawsuit are true. Among the many allegations contained in the lawsuit are the following:

…Ramirez waged war against Lloyd’s and Lloyd’s America. Ramirez filed baseless lawsuits, filed countless administrative complaints, and accused Lloyd’s of illegal business practices and criminal behavior, all in an effort to compel payment of additional “damages” beyond those determined by the committee. devaluation.

6. As part of this strategy, Ramirez has now created entities in Texas using the plaintiffs’ names and trademarks. Specifically, Ramirez formed entities under the names “Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, Inc.” and “Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, LLC.” Ramirez also registered these entities to do business in California.

7. Ramirez even used one of these newly created entities, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, Inc., to apply for federal registration of the mark CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON. Minus Ramirez’s punctuation error, policies issued in the Lloyd’s market are offered under this name, i.e. “Certain Lloyd’s London Underwriters” underwriting a specific policy.

8. Ramirez took these actions to retaliate for Lloyd’s alleged wrongs and to gain leverage over plaintiffs to extort additional payments, including attempting to use his newly formed companies to obtain service of process from Lloyd’s insurers.

56. Apparently dissatisfied with his legal options, on May 26, 2023, Ramirez formed Defendant Texas Corporation “Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London.” He then established a limited liability company with the same name: “Certain Underwriters of Lloyds London, LLC”. Then he filed a certificate of assumed name stating that “Certain underwriters of Lloyds London, Inc.” trading as “Certain Underwriters of Lloyds London”. In addition to creating these entities in Texas, Ramirez also registered his corporation and LLC to do business in California.

57. On June 6, 2023, Ramirez, acting on behalf of this newly created entity, Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, Inc., filed an application to register CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON as a federal trademark.


61. After being informed that his project and application had been discovered and that his use of the marks violated the rights of the applicants, Ramirez denied that he was currently offering the same services that he swore, under oath, that he offer, stating that he does not intend to retain the names of the companies he has registered, seeking to use the companies he created to obtain service of process for his lawsuits and threatening to file allegations with from the IRS, the FBI and the Texas Secretary of State.

74. On November 9, 2023, Ramirez sent an email to the attorneys general of the IRS, FBI, Texas, California and New York, various “Lloyds counsel”, “client counsel” and to the “LAPIA client” stating that he had a responsibility to appoint agents to accept lawsuits in Texas and California on behalf of certain Lloyds London insurers and certain Lloyds London insurers because he owns those entities . This demonstrates Ramírez’s intention to create confusion for insured entities in the Lloyd’s market.

80. Ramírez’s intention is clear from his actions. Ramirez filed a frivolous lawsuit against Raizner Slania LLP and Andrew Slania, the law firm that shared a client with Ramirez. This lawsuit was dismissed. Ramirez then refiled the same lawsuit in Harris County Justice Court against Raizer Slania, LLP and Andrew Slania, adding certain Lloyd insurers.[‘]s London as parties.

81. On November 9, 2023, Ramirez sent an email to a number of federal and state government officials, alleging that Lloyd’s was “not authorized in many states to do business for over 30 years” . The email also states that “Some subscribers[s] at Lloyd[‘]As London and Kevin Hromas and Associates performed together illegally for over 10 years in Texas, deceiving policyholders, public insurance adjusters, courts, judges/arbitrators, etc., some might view this as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. (emphasis in original deleted).

82. Ramirez sent this email not only to various government officials, but he also sent it to several private citizens, including attorneys from the law firms of Donato, Brown, Pool and Moehlmann, Martin, Disiere, Jefferson and Wisdom. , Raizner Slania LLP, Mendes & Mount LLP, and Foley & Lardner LLP, as well as to employees of BNC Equities, a Dallas real estate investment and property management company, and to unidentified individuals with respective addresses e -mail Gmail, Yahoo and AOL.

The allegations contained in this lawsuit by a very worthy and long-time player in the insurance industry are the type of actions that should cause any state department of insurance to conduct an immediate investigation into the fitness and competence of a public expert.

Thought of the day

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.

—Mahatma Gandhi

1 Lloyd’s America v. RamirezNo. 4:23-cv-04306 (SD Texas. [Complaint filed Nov. 15, 2023]).

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button