Mr. George Hernemar is a licensed engineer. His employer, an engineering firm, sent Mr. Hernemar to inspect approximately 50 homes for damage Sandy may have caused to them in 2012.
The engineering firm that Mr. Hernemar worked for was retained by the policyholders' insurance company to investigate their claim of damage. The policyholders owned a rental house adjacent to their own home. Upon inspection of the rental house, Mr. Herneman affirmatively wrote that he observed among other things that Sandy structurally damaged the building.
"However, plaintiffs never received this report from their insurance carrier." Instead, the policyholders received a report written afterward, which contained the conclusion that, among other things, "the subject building was not structurally damaged". In re Hurricane Sandy Cases (Raimey v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co.), 2014 WL 5801540 *3 (E.D.N.Y. November 7, 2014)(Brown, U.S.M.J.). [Emphasis by the Court.]
Although Mr. Hernemar took responsibility for both reports and contended that the first one was only a draft and not a real report, the Court noted Mr. Hernemar's testimony that the "'rewrote my report'" and that the second report did not exist until after Mr. Hernemar had a telephone conversation with a representative of his employer.
The first Hernemar report surfaced in the case only by "happenstance," the Court said. It was apparently not produced in discovery. The second Hernemar report was produced in discovery and, as noted, the policyholders received the second Hernemar report, but not the first one.
"Based upon this [second] report, defendant refused to pay for any structural damage to the home." In re Hurricane Sandy Cases (Raimey v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co.), 2014 WL 5801540 *3 (E.D.N.Y. November 7, 2014)(Brown, U.S.M.J.).
Under all the evidence before it in this case, the Court concluded that adjustment of Sandy claims is apparently ripe for investigation:
Against this backdrop arises the instant dispute, which has exposed reprehensible gamesmanship by a professional engineering company that unjustly frustrated efforts by two homeowners to get fair consideration of their claims. Worse yet, evidence suggests that these unprincipled practices may be widespread.
In re Hurricane Sandy Cases (Raimey v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co.), 2014 WL 5801540 *1 (E.D.N.Y. November 7, 2014)(Brown, U.S.M.J.).
In addition to adjusting practices in all of the consolidated Sandy-claim-cases, the Court considered the case before it, concluding that in the case at bar (1) the defendant insurance company "is prohibited from supporting its defenses or opposing plaintiffs' claims with any expert testimony other than that of George Hernemar," and (2) the plaintiffs' counsel may file a motion "for reimbursement from defendant's counsel for all reasonable costs associated with this motion, the hearing and all related briefing, including attorneys' fees, travel costs and transcription costs".
With respect to this case and all of the other pending consolidated Sandy cases, the Court further ruled:
In re Hurricane Sandy Cases (Raimey v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co.), 2014 WL 5801540 *15 (E.D.N.Y. November 7, 2014)(Brown, U.S.M.J.).
Clearly, the Court in this case was not pleased. Yet no-one who reads this opinion and considers this ruling on the evidence can reasonably second-guess the decision. The ruling, like the unpleasant taste left by the apparent conduct at issue here, was a result of the evidence in the record.
Please Read The Disclaimer. Copyright 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to Original U.S. Government Works.