All this, and Foley is still an Allstate agent?
Talking about your Christian beliefs gets you fired. Engaging in procurement fraud does not.
You’re in Good Hands With Allstate!
###
Albuquerque Journal
Published: Saturday, August 02, 2008
By Copyright 2008 Albuquerque Journal By Colleen Heild Journal Investigative Reporter
A state contract that offers supplemental insurance to government employees has proven profitable for a top Republican legislator over the past year.
Last week, a Chaves County commissioner asked the state attorney general to look into business ties between state Rep. Dan Foley, R- Roswell, and the contract the state awarded to Allstate last year.
Foley, who is an Allstate agent, said the company pays him a 10 percent commission on all policies sold under the contract. So far, an estimated 500 state and local government employees have purchased the insurance, meaning Foley’s cut would run into the thousands of dollars.
Foley said he has done nothing improper and added that the contract was awarded through a competitive process. He dismissed the request for an AG investigation as “purely a political ploy.”
The request came from one of Foley’s critics, Chaves County Commissioner Harold Hobson, who lives near Roswell.
At issue is the state’s decision in 2007 to allow Allstate to sell supplemental cancer, accident and universal life insurance to government employees.
Foley, who serves as House minority whip, said he has had no contact with state officials about the contract. State General Services Department spokesman Alex Cuellar confirmed that in a recent e-mail message to the Journal.
Foley said Allstate pays him the commission because he was the one who noticed the state was soliciting proposals for the insurance on the public General Services Department Web site and alerted his company.
“I mean any Allstate agent could have done that,” he added. He said he also worked with Allstate “getting them pointed in the right direction” on how to respond to the request for proposals.
“We didn’t win it (the contract) before, but we won it this time because (of) my two cents that I gave them,” Foley said.
Foley said he routinely checks the Web site for business prospects.
A state Web site for supplemental voluntary insurance lists Foley as one of Allstate’s 19 participating agents. Foley said he has been one of Allstate’s top sellers of supplemental insurance. A September 2007 memo showed him earning six times more “points” (which are based on business generated) than more than 30 New Mexico Allstate agents or agencies. In a July 29 letter to Attorney General Gary King, Hobson noted that New Mexico law bars state agencies from entering into a sole source contract in which a public officer or employee of the state has a “substantial interest.” Hobson said an inquiry is especially relevant with the special legislative session to begin Aug. 15.
“As part of the elected Republican leadership in our legislature, Rep. Foley will be involved in negotiations on proposed legislation for universal health care or expanded health care coverage that Governor Richardson is promoting,” Hobson said in his letter.
He alleged that Foley’s involvement in supplemental health care policies represents a “direct conflict of interest as the impact of any proposed legislation may reduce the need or the method of these supplemental policies for state employees.” Foley, a Roswell insurance agent for 11 years, has served in the Legislature since 1999 but lost his bid for re-election in June’s primary. His term ends Jan. 1. Attorney General’s Of f ice spokesman Phil Sisneros said the letter had been received and would be forwarded to the appropriate legal section.
Foley said Hobson’s argument has no merit because state law defines sole source contracts as being awarded without competition. He noted that Allstate participated in a competitive request for proposals process. However, Allstate was the only health insurance provider to submit a proposal to offer that specific supplemental insurance, Cuellar said.
Other companies were selected to offer other types of insurance such as pre-paid legal services, home and auto insurance, and whole life.
Foley also said he hasn’t directly sold the insurance to any state employee and hasn’t solicited any state employee to buy it.
“I felt like it was probably not right for me as Rep. Foley with my red (legislative) license plate to pull into the Department of Transportation (or any other state agency) and say ‘I’m here to sell you something.’”
An Allstate spokeswoman on Friday wouldn’t comment about any particular agent’s commission but said the state procurement was a “very transparent process.” She said individual agents usually don’t sell the insurance because it is offered at annual employee enrollments in the workplace.
Rates for Allstate cancer insurance range from $9 to $24 per paycheck and from $7 to $51 for accident coverage. The state Web site for employee benefits did not list specific rates for life insurance premiums. Cuellar estimated that about 500 state or local employees have signed up for the voluntary insurance through payroll deduction.
Employees can also make personal payments to Allstate. The state Risk Management Division had no contact with Foley regarding the Allstate contract, Cuellar said.
Supplemental insurance was offered effective July 1, 2007, after the state Risk Management Division “conducted an internal member survey asking for insurance product suggestions.”
The state went to a request for proposals, after gaps were identified in the employees’ benefits package.
As a contractor, Allstate makes no payments to the state. It offers employees a group rate for which Foley said employees pay 100 percent of the cost.
History of criticism A request for proposals issued in the spring of 2007 allowed vendors to bid on any or all portions of the voluntary benefits insurance products required by the RFP. Six other companies submitted proposals, Cuellar stated in his e-mail, but none for the three types of insurance Allstate is providing. Hobson, a Roswell area farmer, has been critical of Foley in the past, and on primary election night in 2006 the two had a public verbal altercation. “He was yelling at some women and I told him to stop,” Foley said. Hobson, in a letter to the Roswell Daily Record, contended the “attack required two deputies to jump in between Mr. Hobson and Mr. Foley.” Hobson also wrote a letter to Foley last week calling on him to “recuse himself from any participation in negotiations, debate or votes on legislation dealing with state insurance during the special session. It’s impossible for the public to know when Dan Foley ‘the Legislator’ is speaking and when Dan Foley ‘the state insurance contractor’ is talking.” Foley responded that Hobson “is just throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.”
A Complaint from Cleveland, OH
August 4, 2008
Mike of Cleveland, OH, made this complaint on July 23, 2008:
Check this out! Forgot to pay the gas bill. my bad, gas man comes out to the house and turns the gas back on, but, leaves the hot water tank on high! Being the bachelor at 30 years of age that I am, I only go down to the basement to do laundry, maybe once a month. I open the door to the basement 11 days later as it took everything I had to get it open.
I found it to be, my best guess, 95 degrees and like a sauna.
The entire basement had mold from the drop ceiling to the walls going up the stairs. Since it is MOLD, I was told immediately that my coverage was only 5000. I repeatedly told 5 different people from Allstate, that obviously didn’t know how a hot water tank worked, that I was so thankful the safety valve was working on the tank and myself and my cats didn’t die in an explosion.
They wouldn’t take steam damage as an answer. it’s MOLD, it’s MOLD all 5 said! I simply replied that MOLD doesn’t bow drop ceiling tiles, and that if it was only this MOLD I could clean it. I wasn’t looking to make anything, I just wanted my basement back the way it was.
It took Allstate an additional 16 days to finally get an actual adjuster to come out to the house today. I was set up in a hotel in the meanwhile, but only until the day of inspection! Not even another night. I have two cats and a girlfriend whom regularly spends the night. I had to be out of the hotel on the 23rd, the day finally someone would come out from Allstate between the hours of 8 to 11 am, not to mention checkout was 12. At that point if they denied the claim, I would have to be out that day. I never thought it would get that far! They didn’t even care that I have food in fridge and freezer, cats and everything that I took away from the house.
What, live out of my van with cats, food and everything I brought, with nowhere to go! So, inspector came out and seemed like he understood but yet I get the call, MOLD damage again AKA 5000 which my hotel was included in ,1200 as of the 23rd, and it is not the Ritz.
He finally accepted the drop ceiling as steam damage and would cover that. Now, what person in their right mind can claim one thing is covered by what happened and the others aren’t? Bowed ceiling tiles aren’t caused by mold and neither is wet carpet or furniture dripping from them. He took plenty of pics, and I can’t wait to take them to court. Anyone know a good lawyer in Cleveland? Goods hands my ass! Now paying for my own hotel and the house is untouched as mold is still growing from the basement sauna!
A Complaint from Roselle Park, NJ
August 4, 2008
Nicole of Roselle Park NJ made this complaint on July 31, 2008:
My husband and I leased a new car in March of 2008. We called a few insurance places before getting a great quote from Allstate. We were quoted a six month policy for a little over $700 a month. Needless to say, we were happy that we found Allstate. We agreed to the quote and waited for the first time customer package to arrive in the mail. It arrived, but with the wrong address. (We were lucky it got to us at all.) We emailed the agent we had been working with, and she said that she’d send another package to us with the right address. We received the second package, again with the wrong address. Now it’s only a few days before the package need to be completely and sent back to Allstate.We call Allstate again and speak to a different agent. She informs us that we need to complete the package and send it back before a certain date or we’ll lose the quote. They will fix the address problem once the paperwork is done. Fine, we do this. I sign up online for Allstate to view and pay bills. I check my account for a month before a payment is finally due. The quote and payments have now nearly tripled! Our quote went from $700 to nearly $1,900! We called Allstate and asked what the problem was. They said that we hadn’t submitted prior proof of insurance, which was never asked for in the bundle of initial documents sent to us. But, ok, we send them proof of prior insurance, 6 months worth, from Geico.
More time passes and we hear nothing about our payments. We call Allstate again. They now claim to need more proof of insurance. We sent them SEVEN years worth of insurance from Progressive, our insurance carrier before Geico. We expect that this will all be cleared up now. Well, I go online to check our status this past Sunday, July 27th, and I find that our policy had been CANCELLED since JULY 21! I was furious. We had been driving in an uninsured car for 6 days. There was no notice sent to us. As a matter of fact, on July 25th, we received a notice dated July 19th that we needed to get a visual inspection done (yet another hoop to jump through).
There was no warning that our policy would be canceled, and the agents we spoke to over the last 3 months had told us that they would work it all out. My husband and I, in good faith, had even paid Allstate three months of the payments that we were initially quoted — just to show that we were willing to stick around until they sorted this mess out, a mess that they created by not being specific enough on what they needed from us.
Despite a conference call made this week with Allstate, Geico, and Progressive, nothing has been resolved. Allstate claims to need proof of birthdate, which both previous insurances sent them — but apparently, it’s not the proper document. (What else do they need?) Allstate refuses to reinstate our policy and give us our original quote. We have done everything that they asked, but they keep finding more documents or information that they need to stall this process. Now our case is in review until Monday, August 4th. This makes an entire week without insurance and, therefore, no transportation.
Scientology Followup: Catholic Agent’s “Job in Jeopardy”
August 3, 2008
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
June 11, 1995, Sunday, City Edition
Word at Allstate: hush
Allstate Corp. has threatened to fire an employee for speaking to the press.
Allstate issued a “job in jeopardy” notice to John Softye, a New York agent who complained in an article in the Wall Street Journal and others about a consultant teaching Scientology management practices.
“The articles in which your statements appeared had a potentially damaging impact on Allstate’s reputation,” said the notice. It warned he’d be fired if he spoke to the press again without approval.
Mr. Softye, a devout Catholic who says he resented having to sit through Scientology-based training, sent a letter to the company saying the reprimand was a “clear form of religious discrimination.”
The Journal reported in March that between 1988 and 1992 Allstate had employed a consultant who taught Scientology management principles.
As reported, Allstate is contesting religious discrimination complaints filed by two agents with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
A Complaint from Dallas Ft. Worth, TX
August 3, 2008
Namron of Fort Worth, TX, made this complaint on June 26, 2008:
I encountered a total loss on my 2006 Ford f-250 p/up truck. Allstate offered me $6000.00 less than the cost to replace it, and have offered less than a third of the cost to replace my heavy duty bumpers, tool box, and lumber rack. They used one comp over 200 miles from where I live. Yet, they can not provide any comps in the Dallas Fort Worth area. I have been with out a vehicle for nearly a month and to protest this will take another 3- 4 weeks.
I am a reasonable person, but they are absurd and will not reason with the facts.
A Complaint from GA
August 3, 2008
Christopher Ladd of GA made this complaint on July 5, 2008:
A girl who was insured by Allstate ran a red light and totaled my Corvette. About three weeks after the accident, they officially totaled the car and had it appraised at 34.9k and said that was how much they were going to pay me. That same week they picked up the car from the collision center and took it to their auction and storage facility. One week later they asked me to sign the power of attorney so as soon as they made the payment to GMAC they could retain the title from GMAC. Exactly one week after I signed the power of attorney at the Allstate office, they informed me that the girl that hit me was under insured and they were not going to pay what they stated they were 2 weeks ago. To me this seems like fraud. I would have never signed that power of attorney if I had known this girl was under insured. Now I feel like they are trying to get the car as soon as they make their payment of 25k and they are not entitled to the car if they did not pay what it is worth. This seems like theft by deception. Either way it should be against the law. If Allstate is watching this board, my claim number is 0111 541 223. You can bet I am following up the Georgia Insurance Commissioner and the Better Business Bureau. I am also complaining on every public site I can get some bandwidth on. I want everyone to know what kind of crap I have had to go through with Allstate. This Tuesday will be 6 weeks from the accident and I feel we are not closer to a resolution today than we were 6 weeks ago. Maybe they should save some of their advertising money and put it towards taking care of their open claims.
A Complaint from Crane, MO
August 3, 2008
Mr. and Mrs. J. Heavin of Crane, MO, made this complaint on July 6, 2008:
After we took out our Allstate homeowners policy I called our agent and ask him specifically if we were covered for flood damage. He assured me we were even if our pipes or washer caused the problem. Last week a storm caused damage to our guttering which caused water to back up into our house causing about 5000.00 worth of damage to the floors. Now he claims he never told me that and refuses our claim. He is seldom available when needed so you have to leave a message and hope he returns your call. In my opinion our service sucks and we will be canceling all our 5 in all policies with Allstate.
Allstate Class Action Lawsuit
August 3, 2008
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Kansas City Area
Allstate Employee Agents – Charging Party
V.
Allstate Insurance Company – Respondent
DETERMINATION
I issue the following determination on the merits of the this charge.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; et seq., (“Title VII”); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.,(“ADEA”); and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.,(“ADA”). All requirements for coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleges that Respondent required that all employee-agents sign a waiver and release of all claims against Respondent, including all claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA, in order to (1) remain as an insurance agent for Respondent, (2) receive an enhanced severance benefit upon the termination of their employment, or (3) to be able to sell their economic interest in their book of business. Charging Party also alleges that employee-agents who failed to sign the release and waiver were not allowed to continue as insurance agents for Respondent.
Respondent maintains that it implemented a reorganization of its business in order to convert all of its employee insurance agents to independent contractors. The reorganization was titled “Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program (“the Program”). Under the Program, Respondent acknowledges that in exchange for the employee-agents release and waiver of all their claims under the ADEA, the ADA, and Title VII, (as well as other claims not enforced by the Commission) the agent could elect to become an exclusive independent contractor agent for Respondent (Option 1), convert to an exclusive independent contractor agent status and sell the economic or other interest in their book of business, (Option 2), or elect enhanced severance pay including reimbursement for expenses after the close of the agent’s office (Option 3).Respondent admits that employee agents who did not sign a release and waiver were not allowed to continue as insurance agents for Respondent and would receive Respondent’s normal severance benefits. It is undisputed that employee-agents who did not sign a release and waiver which included their claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA by June 1, 2000, were not allowed to continue as an insurance agent for Respondent after July 1, 2000. The refusal of employee agents to release their claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA constitutes protected activity under these statutes. Respondent’s refusal to maintain these individuals as insurance agents constitutes unlawful retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA and also constitutes the unlawful interference, coercion and intimidation in the exercise and enjoyment of rights granted by the ADA.
Moreover, Respondent’s threat to its employee-agents that they would lose their careers and livelihoods as insurance agents with Respondent if they did not release and waive their claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA, constitutes unlawful retaliation against those individuals who signed releases and also constitutes the unlawful interference, coercion and intimidation in the exercise and enjoyment of rights granted by the ADA.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites you to join with it in a just resolution of this matter. Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process will be made in accordance with Section 1601.26 of the Commission’s Procedural Regulations.
If Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the Office Director is not obtained, the Director will provide this information and advise of the court enforcement alternative available to aggrieved person and the Commission.
A Commission representative will contact the Parties in the near future to begin conciliation.
IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENTS
January 6, 2006
The proposed class action lawsuit brought by 29 plaintiffs, known as Romero I, seeks to recover pension, medical and other benefits estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and other relief, on behalf of about 6,200 current and former Allstate agents. The plaintiffs have alleged that the company betrayed its long-time “captive” employee agents by wrongfully terminating their employment contracts in order to deny them pension and other employee benefits and to rid itself of thousands of older employees. The suit claims that Allstate’s actions taken as part of the “Preparing for the Future” Group Reorganization Program violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and Allstate’s contractual and fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs also allege that Allstate wrongfully refused to rehire any of the terminated employee agents for a period of one year to reduce retirement benefits that former agents could earn in the future.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed two lawsuits against Allstate on behalf of affected agents. The first, filed in December 2001, alleges that Allstate violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADEA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by forcing its employee agents to sign a release and waiver that the EEOC previously determined to be unlawful. The EEOC’s lawsuit has been consolidated with Romero I. The second lawsuit, filed in October 2004, alleges that the one-year “rehiring moratorium” adopted by Allstate constituted a pattern and practice of unlawful age discrimination. According to the EEOC, the refusal to rehire employee agents had the intended effect of depriving individuals of the ability to continue to accrue the substantial pension and other benefits to which they had been entitled without a “break in service.”
On March 30, 2004, Senior District Judge John Fullam granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Romero I, holding that the release violated the ADEA because it barred the filing of “charges,” including challenges to the validity of the release. As Judge Fullam observed, “we have no way of knowing how many other employee-agents failed to pursue charges before the EEOC simply because they accepted the release language at face value.” The Court held further that Allstate had engaged in unlawful retaliation under the ADEA, Title VII and other laws in order to prevent agents from exercising their federally-protected rights. As part of its ruling, however, the Court concluded, based on the limited record before it, that there was “no basis” for plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims. Although the Court did not actually dismiss the ADEA claims, it held that agents who desire to have the release invalidated and pursue claims for damages or other relief would first have to repay or “tender back” to Allstate “any and all benefits received by the signer in exchange for the release.”
Plaintiffs filed a motion in April 2004 asking the Court to reconsider the “tender back” requirement. The EEOC also filed its own motion asking that the Court clarify its ruling.
In December 2005, Allstate filed a summary judgment motion asking the Court not only to reconsider its March 2004 decision and reverse itself by upholding the release. Allstate also is asking the Court to dismiss the claims the Romero plaintiffs are prosecuting under the ADEA and ERISA, including the claim that the release constitutes unlawful retaliation. CEO Liddy has joined in the request for summary judgment. Plaintiffs and the EEOC have opposed the motion on numerous grounds. In a 48-page brief filed with the Court under seal, plaintiffs lay out the reasons that Allstate is not entitled to seek reconsideration of the March 2004 ruling at this late date and, in any event, is not entitled to dismissal of the ADEA and ERISA claims or, indeed, any of their claims as a matter of law. In further support of their arguments, plaintiffs note, among other things, that they have not been able to undertake “merits” discovery because of Allstate’s unjustified refusal to produce documents responsive to their discovery requests. Plaintiffs therefore have requested that the Court deny the motions for summary judgment and that it instead grant the relief requested with respect to the “tender back” requirement in the motions that have been pending since April 2004.
Anyone seeking additional information about the case, including whether they are included in the class that plaintiffs seek to have certified, or any of the proposed subclasses, are encouraged to contact: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP or Sprenger & Lang PLLC.
A Complaint from Orange Park, FL
August 2, 2008
Douglas, of Orange Park, FL made this complaint on 03/28/08 against Allstate agent Jose Alvarez, 5701 SW 107 Ave. Suite 202, Miami, Florida, 33173 (305) 554-1009
I had been with Allstate for more than three years with no claims, my premium payment was $520.00 annually for comp. and collision with 10,20,50 bodily injury and property damage. Apparently the rate was too good. I had made two online payments, which I later discovered were not credited to my account. The cancellation notice came in the mail and I had no recourse. I renewed the policy short -term, while I shop around, at an additional $440.00 annually. Almost 100% increase of the previous policy. I have looked at both sides of this equation and have determined after carefully reviewing the information that Allstate failed to post the payments, to make my premiums rise. If you are in need of insurance, steer clear of these people. It will not be long and they will be another Enron. Shame on you, shame on me.
