Topic: State Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.
Your Feedback:
posted by G.M.Heller at Monday, May 16, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
About Me
- Name: G.M.Heller
- Location: Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., United States
Hailed by Berkshire cognoscenti as that "crank on the grassy knoll".
Previous Posts
- Topic: Southern Berkshire Regional School District...
- Topic: Should Berkshire County DA David Capeless e...
- Topic: President George W. Bush
- Topic: Political bias or balance at The Berkshire...
- Topic: U.S. Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
- Topic: Berkshire County's Politicians - - - - Loc...
- Topic: Berkshire County's Speedtraps.
- Topic: Berkshire County's Lawyers.
- Topic: Berkshire County's Judges.
- Topic: Berkshire County's Police.
28 Comments:
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, Politicians, & the People:
Timothy G. Kiely is Denis E. Guyer's campaign manager for Dalton State Representative, and I believe Mr. Kiely is the propaganda source for Denis E. Guyer's continual SLANDER against me to the good people in the Pittsfield area.
Tim Kiely was my Citizens Bank Branch Manager from around the tragic day of September 11th, 2001 through April 10th, 2002 -- for about 7-months. Also working for Tim Kiely during that time was a woman named Robin, whose ex-husband worked as a Massachusetts State Police Officer at the Berkshire County District Attorney's Office, who shared inside information about me to Tim Kiely about my past dispute with the Becket woman (who was married in the Summer of 2002), whom Denis E. Guyer racistly refers to in his slanderous rumors he spreads against me, and her vicious and verbally abusive father who threatened to assault me.
Denis E. Guyer and Tim Kiely play dirty politics and conduct themselves for the purposes of gaining political power for blood money for more political power... I hope the people will legally and legitimately STOP such slick, unethical, golddigging Pols, and sorry excuses for human beings, as Denis E. Guyer and Tim Kiely!
For the record, I did the right thing by going to and co-operating with the police to end the domestic violence perpetrated by the vicious father of the Becket woman I had befriended. This woman Denis E. Guyer refers to in his slanderous attacks against me was married in 2002, lives a safe life, and is no threat of danger from me. Denis Guyer tried to incite violence against me by telling many people in the Pittsfield area that "I stalked a Jewish woman from Otis" and that "I belong in a psychiatric institution", and the like.
Throughout my whole life, I have had to deal with hypocritical ASSHOLES like Denis E. Guyer, Tim Kiely, Andy Luciforo, Carmen Massimiano, Cliff Nilan, and the like. I have made the decision in my life to always reject "the Bully Principles", but rather to only work to help people and society.
The following are my GOALS in my LIFE--
JONATHAN A. MELLE's CAREER GOALS:
My career goals focus on helping people and society. I strongly believe in the moral principles of social justice for positive peace. I am committed to helping people both on a local scale with compassion to a global scope with understanding. One way I would be able to accomplish my goals would to become a powerful politician – maybe even a president.
I want to be able to grow with an institution and work towards my own financial independence, or at least self-sufficiency. In my institutional role, I would work with people to listen to the diverse views on social issues and problems in both a caring individual and tolerating group environment.
I hope to use my training in public management to deal with the many complex dynamics of government agencies in collaboration with all stakeholders to produce positive societal outcomes. As a public manager, I would ensure efficiency with equity, effectiveness with fairness, and accountability with merit under responsible management methodologies.
In my personal life, I hope to meet a good woman to grow into a long-term, healthy and financially equitable relationship with and always be together for each other’s mutual benefit. I hope to live a good life, marry a good woman, and live happily in a safe and healthy community that I am free to contribute to unharassed.
I may go to Law School someday.
The following was my negative experience working for Tim Kiely:
NOTES: On Citizens Bank—
· Tim Kiely, Branch Manager, is a BULLY! Mr. Kiely sees management under the banal precepts of the corporate bully principles. He misused his authoritative power for his own ends, behaved inappropriately without witnesses, baited his employees into inappropriate behavior, and then held them accountable only for their transgressions while denying his own wrongdoing. Mr. Kiely used racist language, was sexist towards his female subordinates, and he was always political in his outside life (meaning he did favors for favors—dirty business, black and white, not right or wrong). Mr. Kiely not only denied his own bad behavior while baiting and then holding his subordinates accountable for their inappropriate behavior, he then also lied about the inappropriate behavior of his employees to protect himself in his acts of retaliation. Mr. Kiely saw me coming, read me, and reveled in his abuse of me to justify his own terrible code or way of life. Mr. Kiely is a GOLDDIGGER! He bragged about his then wife’s trust fund, and how he lives in a nice home for free without even having to pay the property taxes. Mr. Kiely explained to me that if his wife ever divorced him and ended the entitlements, he would then just go and find another wealthy woman to marry and live off of. I recall Mr. Kiely taking large sums of money out of his young daughter’s trust fund account and then saying he would pay her back the money. Mr. Kiely then moved from his wife’s Town of Dalton to the City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, presumably after his wife divorced him after he presumably robbed her trust fund of assets and money. He worked at Colt’s Investments and is now a Branch Manager for Greylock Federal Credit Union. His birthday is in early-1969, and he is now 38 years old. In Mr. Kiely’s malevolence against me for formally complaining to Citizens Bank and then the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against his misconduct, he made it very difficult for me to find employment by badmouthing me and lying about me to both the bank and then prospective employers. From the beginning, I was doomed under Mr. Kiely because I despise bullying and prescribing to the bully principles to make myself “safe.” It has been said to me on many occasions and times by diverse groups of professional people that my TERMINATION from Citizens Bank is the major impediment that I face to finding a full-time job. Mr. Kiely knew what he was doing to me, and carried out his disadvantageous agenda against me to full deleterious effect. The back-story was that I was already blacklisted in the Berkshires for my participation in state and local government. Mr. Kiely is a POLITICIAN and it was to his advantage to sink me to gain favor with career politicians like Andy Nuciforo, John Barrett III, Dan Bosley, et al. Career politicians make life difficult for average citizens by manipulating people and events as retaliation, for their own personal amusements, and as excuses under false pretenses to uphold their small-minded blacklists. Nuciforo, Barrett and Bosley, et al, have done this kind of thing to many people in their area of control. I was not the first, nor will I be the last. Of course, I am made to look like the bad guy in the highly manipulated eyes of their sphere of influence.
· After the April 10, 2002 incident between Tim Kiely and myself, whereby Mr. Kiely threatened me by ordering me in a hostile voice into the safe room [of the bank] where there would be no witnesses and then putting his body within one inch of me for a lengthy period of time after I disobeyed his threatening order, I was transferred to another bank branch under Larry Panzeri. While my fate was sealed on April 10th, my TERMINATION of employment was played out skillfully over the next 6 weeks by all of the insider Tim Kiely sympathizers. On May 21st, Human Resources Manager Jeff Zinn called me to Holyoke from Pittsfield to TERMINATE my employment under the false pretenses of two separate errors I made in Customer Service – one of which was initially made by Mr. Panzeri.
· For the next year and 3-months, I pursued my grievances with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Another Citizens Bank employee, Michele Zamboni-DuCharme did the same. Both her and my separate cases were dismissed with a finding of no probable cause. I realize now that without an Attorney, no system of justice is going to weigh the merits of a case because the system and the bureaucrats that run them are lazy, and they are there primarily for their own pay check and compensation, not for truth, justice and fairness!
· The bottom line is that the system is a done deal. There are predetermined winners and losers. Management uses the corporate bully principles for a reason, and that reason is power based on a reality of black and white, NOT right or wrong. Winner: TIM KIELY. Loser: Jonathan A. Melle. Regardless of my economic class and social status, I will never go down to the base level of using the corporate bully principles. Even if I am at the bottom of society’s rankings of class and status, which I am, at least I will live at my own level of dignity without having to hurt people for my own ego and place in society. Tim Kiely is phony and has and will hurt many people throughout his miserable life! The bottom line is that while I don’t have to become an insider or subscripe to the corporate bully principles to keep my job, I MUST LEARN TO PASS THROUGH OFFICE POLITICS.
RE: What about Luciforo's violations of the conflict of interest law?
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, Pols, & the People:
Re: "Former official's lobbying is eyed: Ex-utilities head aids power firms" (The Boston Globe, June 7, 2007): The news article states: "State Representative Daniel Bosley, Democrat of North Adams, who helped write the law [deregulating the electric industry], said lawmakers wanted to professionalize the commission, by expanding the number of members and raising their salaries. In return, he said, they should `take the year off,' not jump from the agency to the companies they regulated. `You're trying to build a little insulation around your commission,' he said. `[Paul G.] Afonso is a good guy," Bosley added. `I wouldn't see him knowingly violating' the ethics statute's one-year rule."
How come some of these state and local government officials in Massachusetts are accused of violating the conflict of interest laws, but not all? What about Luciforo's violations of the conflict of interest law? Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. served as Chair of several State Senate Committees regulating Insurance companies and other large financial institutions while at the same time serving as a private Attorney for a Boston Law Firm serving the interests of the same Insurance companies and other large financial institutions that Luciforo was regulating. The answer as to why some get accused, while others are above the law, is Orwell's thesis that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Patrick Fennell has written on many occassions how Massachusetts Pols from U.S. Senator John Kerry, State Senator Stan Rosenberg to Pittsfield Mayor Jimmy Ruberto have all violated the State Ethic's conflict of interest laws without consequences, while other less connected politicians and public servants have lost their jobs, pensions, healthcare, and the like. To illustrate this point, John Kerry's campaign account coffers are filled with the same financial institutions that have a stake in putting Luciforo into John Olver's congressional seat. About 3 years ago, when John Kerry was running for President, both he and Luciforo both hosted a corporate elite gala on Nantucket together, pandering to the special interests of Boston's big financial institutions in return for big campaign donations. Just as big oil and the interconnected military machine were George W. Bush's campaign contributors in 2000 and 2004, Boston's corporate elite large financial institutions were John Forbes Kerry's campaign contributors in 2004. In fact, John Forbes Kerry raised millions of more dollars in campaign contributions for his run for U.S. President in 2004 than did his opponent, yet by the November election day, Kerry was outspent by Bush by $15 million and lost by 3 points and a slim margin in the electoral college votes.
I concur with Patrick Fennell's thesis that the State Ethic's conflict of interest law is not really enforced against the powerful and well connected politicians in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Because Luciforo is so coveted by the same special interests who almost put John Kerry in The White House in 2004, the State Ethics Commission will never really have any consequences against Luciforo's conflict of interest activities that were cited in a 1/16/2007 Boston Globe news article. Moreover, these special interests have a stake in putting Luciforo in John W. Olver's congressional seat so that Boston's big financials will have even more political power on Capitol Hill than they do right now.
In Political Science 101, one learns that the true de facto government is ran by the corporate elite, who controls the de jure government through large sums of money, which is called influence. While in theory, the state serves the People, the reality is "We the Corporate Elite". The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is one of the most CORRUPTED governments in the free World. The State Ethics conflict of interest law is misused to show good governance on the superficial facade, while the true context is a government of powerful and well connected politicians serving the corporate elite's special interest for their own gain and hopes for higher office. In closing, both John Forbes Kerry and Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. (a.k.a. Luciforo) got what they deserved! They both made a mockery out of the political system, and now John Kerry will never be elected U.S. President, and Luciforo's chances to takeover Olver's Congressional seat have greatly diminished.
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
Dear Deval-uator Patrick, News Media, Pols, & the People:
According to the following blog: http://blogs.townonline.com/
parkwayBlog/?p=1391 ,
Insurance companies were among [Massachusetts Governor Deval] Patrick’s biggest campaign cash supporters [in 2006]...", and now, "According to the Boston Globe, Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes is making a lot of comments that have insurance industry officials, consumer advocates and legislators believing that she favors returning the state to market-based auto insurance."
Is Deval Patrick selling out to the Insurance Industry Lobby? Hmmm. No wonder why Governor Patrick would NOT appoint former state Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. (aka Luciforo) to the state's Insurance Commissioner post -- as Luciforo unethically represented the established Insurance Companies as a private Boston Attorney for the Berman & Dowell law firm while chairing state legislative committees setting public policies for these greedy, large financial institutions. Luciforo's corrupted interests would have stood in Patrick's way of receiving large amounts of blood money in the form of campaign contributions to his own campaign coffers.
In Truth,
Jonathan A. Melle
THE BOSTON GLOBE -
A NEWS ARTICLE:
Battle brewing on auto insurance
State may overhaul rate-setting system
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
July 1, 2007
The battle over the future of the state's $3.9 billion auto insurance market has trapped Governor Deval Patrick in a political crossfire between his insurance commissioner, who is signaling she wants to overhaul the rate-setting system, and his allies in urban legislative districts, who fear the changes would lead to sky-high premiums for their constituents.
Patrick's insurance commissioner, Nonnie S. Burnes, has made comments both privately and publicly that have convinced industry officials, consumer advocates, and legislators that she is ready to introduce some level of market-based competition to the state's highly regulated auto insurance market and overhaul the system that deals with high-risk drivers.
Massachusetts is the only state that requires the insurance commissioner to set auto rates. This system was established decades ago and is designed to ease the disparity in insurance rates between cities and suburbs. A high-risk pool provides coverage for drivers who cannot get coverage in the regular market.
Allowing insurers to have more control over rates could lure some large companies back to Massachusetts, such as Liberty Mutual, a strong financial supporter of Patrick and other Beacon Hill leaders.
But for urban voters, one of Patrick's core constituencies, it brings back memories of the 1970s, when a brief effort to introduce competition left some city residents annually paying more for car insurance than their vehicles were worth.
"I think this is potentially the worst, negative economic policy decision that faces this governor during his tenure," said Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat of Boston and an early Patrick supporter in last year's gubernatorial campaign. "This would be a disaster."
Patrick, the state's first African - American governor, runs the risk of being accused of turning his back on drivers in minority communities. Wilkerson said the proposed changes are, in effect, "auto insurance redlining" -- referring to discriminating marketing practices that target urban neighborhoods, which Patrick battled as chief of the US Justice Department's civil rights division in the Clinton administration.
"This would be a most egregious form of 21st-century state-sanctioned insurance redlining," she said. Wilkerson said she is confident that Patrick's experience would influence the outcome.
But, by introducing a market-based overhaul, Patrick would make strides in his effort to show a friendly face to the corporate world, including auto insurance companies, many of whom left Massachusetts to seek more profitable, less regulated markets.
Patrick's aides maintain that, while the two sides have presented their case to the insurance commission, no decision has been made. They did not respond directly to Wilkerson's statements. "Any speculation that a final decision has been made or that the administration is leaning in any direction is just that -- speculation," said Patrick's press secretary, Kyle Sullivan.
Wilkerson, Senate majority leader Frederick E. Berry, and Senator Joan M. Menard met last week with Patrick to press their case after Burnes refused to meet with them, saying she faced potential conflicts, according to the senators. Burnes and Daniel O'Connell, economic development secretary, met with the senators many days later in Berry's office.
Burnes is a former superior court judge. She is scheduled to sit down with several of Patrick's aides next week as the governor and his staff try to prepare for what could be an explosive decision, if the state's past history is any guide. Her decision is expected by July 15.
The debate pits the so-called domestic insurers -- mainly Commerce Insurance and Arbella Insurance, which dominate the auto insurance business in the Bay State -- against those firms, led by Liberty Mutual, that have abandoned Massachusetts but would be eager to return if they can set their own rates.
Attorney General Martha Coakley has raised a number of questions about implementing a competitive market-rating system, providing Wilkerson and other opponents with strong fodder. Her insurance division has warned that rates in Boston could jump 20 percent and by as much as 35 percent in Roxbury and Dorchester. Other urban areas in the state would see hikes of between 15 and 20 percent, her staff said.
A group of insurers, which includes Liberty Mutual and calls itself the Fairness for Good Drivers Coalition, has proposed a compromise that would implement a form of competition by allowing companies to change their overall rates, up or down, 5 percent next year. Under the proposal, individual driver rates could not rise more than 10 percent. The group also said it supports the current system, in which suburban car owners subsidize lower rates for urban owners.
John Cusilito, Liberty's spokesman, said history in other states, such as New Jersey and Connecticut, shows that urban communities are not hit with higher rates when competition is introduced. "We support the continuance of subsidies for high - risk drivers in high-risk territories to help avoid rate-sticker shock," he said.
The group's proposal reflects many of the recommendations of a task force the governor created earlier this year, which called on Burnes to "examine alternative moves toward competitive rating."
Wilkerson said the push for a competitive rating system is based on the companies' quest for profits, not what is best for consumers. The profit margin for auto insurers in Massachusetts, she said, is about 40 percent below the national average. In 2005, the profit by Bay State companies was 5.7 percent, while the national average was 8.1 percent.
With a decision on the horizon, the insurance industry, which floods the State House hallways with high -paid lobbyists and pads political campaign accounts with donations, is drawing on its years of cultivating support.
Commerce Insurance, Arbella, and Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp. -- which are fiercely guarding their dominance of the Massachusetts market -- lead the fund-raising. Campaign finance records show that the firms' executives and lobbyists donated $154,000 in the 2005-2006 election cycle. Menard picked up $40,000 from the insurers; Wilkerson, $14,000; and Berry, $33,000.
Meanwhile, the Globe reported last week that Edmund F. Kelly, Liberty Mutual's president and chief executive officer, co-hosted a fund-raiser for Patrick on June 18 that produced more than $25,000 in donations for the governor. Kelly's fund-raising focus on the Democratic governor is occurring after several years of directing donations to former governor Mitt Romney, who had pushed for dismantling the current rate-setting system.
(Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in Sunday's City & Region section about possible changes in the state's auto insurance rate-setting system incorrectly characterized Liberty Mutual's status in the Massachusetts market. The insurance company does provide auto insurance to Massachusetts drivers.)
Auto insurers expect 3d rate drop
Prediction comes as Patrick official looks at deregulating prices
By Bruce Mohl, [The Boston] Globe Staff
July 6, 2007
The state's automobile insurers say they are likely to ask for a rate decrease next year if the Patrick administration decides to continue regulating the prices they can charge.
It would be the third straight year insurers have asked state regulators to cut premiums, a trend reflecting an unprecedented downturn in the dollar value of insurance claims.
Daniel J. Johnston, president of the Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts, said the size of any requested rate reduction won't be known until company expense numbers and other data are crunched over the next two months.
But he said claims data indicate the cost and severity of auto insurance claims continued to fall in 2006, with the value of all claims dropping 8.5 percent compared to 2005.
"It's good news, and it likely suggests we'll be filing for another rate decrease," Johnston said.
An industry request for a reduction would guarantee Massachusetts drivers some premium relief next year, since the filing by the companies is typically the starting point for the state rate-setting process.
This year the auto insurance companies asked for a 3.7 percent reduction in rates and the state's insurance commissioner ultimately approved an 11.7 percent drop, resulting in a statewide average premium of $899. In 2006, the companies requested their first rate reduction ever, asking for a 0.1 percent decrease. The commissioner ultimately approved an 8.7 percent cut.
Nonnie S. Burnes, the insurance commissioner appointed by Governor Deval Patrick in February, hasn't decided yet whether to set auto insurance rates for 2008. She is giving serious consideration to deregulating the rate-setting process and letting automobile insurers set their own premiums. A decision is expected by July 16.
Many of the state's auto insurers say premiums would probably fall even faster if they were allowed to set their own rates rather than having to wait for the state's annual review. But opponents of competitive rate setting say there's no need to tinker with the process .
"Rates have never plummeted like this, ever," said Stephen D'Amato, a consultant to the Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge. "This just shows there's no crisis in the auto insurance market, and the current rating system is working for consumers."
But proponents of change argue that rates overall will drop more quickly if competition is allowed, and any increase in rates affecting some drivers would be mitigated in an environment where prices are falling.
"This is the perfect time to move to competition," said James Harrington, executive director of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, which represents state insurers pushing for competition.
Paul Mattera, senior vice president for public affairs at Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. of Boston, which favors some deregulation, said the benefits of competition go well beyond the prospect for lower premiums. He said Liberty in other states is free to offer better services, such as policies that let customers off the hook for an accident if their record has been clean for five years, or replace a car without any depreciation if the vehicle is less than four years old.
"There are benefits to the consumer beyond price diversity," he said.
Johnston, of the Automobile Insurers Bureau, attributed the decline in the value of claims to a mild winter in 2006 and success in fighting fraud. Analysts say claims also have been dropping nationally, possibly because cars are safer and people are driving fewer miles because of high er gas prices.
-----
Editorial
The Berkshire Eagle
Monday, July 09, 2007
A bid for car insurance reform
Major auto insurance reform is not in the cards in Massachusetts, the only state in which rates are set by the government, but Nonnie S. Burns, Governor Patrick's recently appointed insurance commissioner, is considering modest changes that may attract a little much-needed competition. Rather than establish fixed rates as in the past, the commissioner may establish a range of rates within which insurers can work, which might persuade some of the national companies that want no part of the state to consider coming in. Rates are likely to decline for a third straight year, but it is unclear why and they may rise again just as inexplicably. Competition may introduce lower rates that car owners can count on.
The Boston Herald
On auto insurance, gov won’t drive us to poor house
By Michael Graham
Friday, July 6, 2007
As a lawyer and a politician, Deval Patrick has defended rapists, racial quotas and even reparations for slavery.
Now he’s ready to defend something truly radical: capitalism.
In a move utterly unexpected from the “Cadillac of Governors,” Patrick may become a champion of free markets and consumer choice - at least in the area of auto insurance.
A panel appointed by Patrick in January to consider car insurance reform has recommended less government interference and (members of the Massachusetts teachers unions may want to sit down for this) “competitive, market-based” insurance rates.
Instead of denouncing them as right-wing extremists, Patrick called the panel’s recommendations “a meaningful first step introducing a level of competition which will prove beneficial to all Massachusetts drivers.”
For a business-basher like Patrick, that’s positively Reaganesque.
Now comes word that Patrick’s insurance commissioner, Nonnie Burnes, has been overheard suggesting that there may be something to this whole “free enterprise” system after all.
When confronted with these rumors, the Patrick administration did not throw the usual Massachusetts liberal tantrum and throw the bourgeoisie under the anti-big-business bus. Instead, a spokesman merely denied that Patrick has made a decision either way.
Which sent state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Boston) into a pseudo-Marxist frenzy. “I think this is potentially the worst, negative economic policy decision that faces this governor during his tenure,” she said, calling market-based auto insurance a “disaster.”
Maybe capitalism is a “disaster,” but without it, Massachusetts has the fourth highest car insurance rates in America. We’re also the only state that lets state regulators, not the market, set rates.
Wilkerson points out that state regulators have lowered rates three years in a row. She’s right. But according to the Insurance Fraud Bureau, most of that reduction came from a statewide crackdown on insurance fraud. About half of rate cuts since 2004 can be traced back to reducing fraud in just five communities: Lawrence, Haverhill, Methuen, Andover and North Andover.
Lawrence is notorious for auto insurance fraud. But thanks to the Massachusetts system, drivers across the state pay higher premiums to subsidize the bad behavior in Lawrence. How is that fair?
To her credit, Wilkerson acknowledges that “fair” is not her objective. Her objective is to protect people who live in high-claims, high-crime, high-risk areas - i.e., her constituents - from the consequences of their actions.
Ask Wilkerson why our government-controlled insurance system has rates 25 percent higher than the national average, and Wilkerson blames Bay Staters for being lousy drivers (her words, not mine). It’s not the system, she claims, it’s the stupidity of the people of Massachusetts.
Well, every state has some bad drivers, of course. But our bad drivers are the worst of the worst, passing an estimated $300 million in costs onto the rest of us. That’s because, in Massachusetts, the worse you drive, the more subsidies you get from good drivers.
Dangerous drivers who would be paying $6,000 or more per year in New York or Connecticut can pay as little as $2,000 here. Who pays the other $4,000? All you suckers driving in the right-hand lane and obeying the speed limit.
It’s not fair. It’s not right. And, as astonishing as it may sound, the champion of capitalism who steps forward to stop it may be Deval Patrick of Milton (Friedman?), Mass.
However, Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. -- aka Luciforo -- represents the Twilight Zone theme of Berkshire County's inner workings. Luciforo's father was a Berkshire State Senator and then a Berkshire Probate Judge. Luciforo's aunt was a Mayor of Pittsfield in the late 1980's. Luciforo tried to jail me for exercising my free speech rights during the period I defended my dad's stance for county governments. Luciforo tried to ruin my dad's career during the same time period: The Spring of 1998. As Berkshire State Senator, Luciforo went onto chair legislative committees regulating big banks and insurance companies while at the same time serving as a private Attorney for a Boston Law Firm named "Berman & Dowell" where Luciforo represented the same financial institutions he was setting public policies, laws and regulations for in the Massachusetts State Legislature from around 2001 - 2006. Moreover, Luciforo still represents these big business financial institution in 2007 while publicly serving as a Berkshire Register of Deeds, which he was annointed to after he strong-armed two women candidates out of the state election for this seat in the Spring of 2006. In 2008 or 2010, it is heavily predicted that Luciforo is going to make a run for the United States Congressional Seat by ousting John W. Olver out of the Democratic Party Primary election before Olver's seat is lost to population attrition in the 2012 Congressional Election cycle. Of course, Luciforo stands a solid chance at ousting Olver either next year and/or in 3 years from now because the big financial institutions in and around Boston will heavily finance his bid to represent their special interests on Capitol Hill.
The reason why I illustrate Luciforo's political designs is because it gives a context to the inner workings of Berkshire County's Twilight Zone styled inner workings. Only in Berkshire County would the political elite give into Luciforo's agenda, which would continue to see persecutions, undemocratic state elections, conflicts of interests, and the selling out of a snowed in local population for the special interests of Boston's financial sector corporate elites. The reason why everyone gives into Luciforo is because of his inbred, multigenerational family history of entrenched political control of a local area. To illustrate, during the 6 weeks I went around Pittsfield in the late winter of 2004 when I attempted to oppose him for Berkshire State Senator, many people told me that they did not like or respect Luciforo, but if the local political ruling class found out I was receiving their support then they would lose their respective jobs. People actually feared for their jobs if they did not give lip service to Luciforo's political agenda. That is The Twilight Zone theme of Berkshire County politics.
-----
Foreclosure fund to aid borrowers
Wire and Staff Reports
Berkshire Eagle
Article Last Updated:07/12/2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
BOSTON — Massachusetts will become one of the first states in the nation to try to curb rising foreclosures by raising cash through bond sales, a move that will help create a $250 million fund to help struggling borrowers refinance and stay in their homes.
Fannie Mae, the federally sponsored buyer of home mortgages, will provide $190 million for the program announced yesterday by Gov. Deval L. Patrick's administration. MassHousing, the state's quasi-public affordable housing agency, will sell bonds to cover its $60 million portion.
The money will help provide foreclosure prevention counseling to homeowners, and help those behind on their payments to refinance from high-risk subprime mortgages into conventional fixed-rate loans.
Housing agencies will negotiate on behalf of individual homeowners. The state will seek to have lenders absorb some of the financial hit from recently declining home values by encouraging them to agree to new loans smaller than the ones that got homeowners into trouble, rather than pursuing foreclosure.
"They can either accept 90 or 95 percent of the original loan, or they would have to take that borrower through foreclosure," Tina Brooks, Patrick's undersecretary of housing, said in a phone interview. "Foreclosure means making a bet that once the lender receives the property, they would then be able to sell it at a value to recover the full balance of the loan, plus all of the costs involved in taking it through foreclosure."
Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., Middle Berkshire Registrar of Deeds, said the plan is a step in the right direction.
"Many of the borrowers with poor credit situations are falling below the line, and the governor has made housing and keeping housed families in housing a priority of his," Nuciforo said.
Amid the current housing market slump, lenders typically can't sell homes in foreclosure auctions at prices that would grant a payout equal to the original loan amount, said John Battaglia, a board member of the Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association.
So it may make sense to accept a smaller, refinanced loan in cases where borrowers appear able to afford new repayment terms, Battaglia said. But the state can't force a lender to do so.
"Each one has to be looked at individually," he said. "If you're talking about a 10 percent hit or a 20 percent hit, it's probably a lot better than foreclosing, because you tend to lose 30 percent or more on a foreclosure property."
Massachusetts is among many states that have recently sought to ease spiking foreclosure rates by tightening lending regulations. Because Massachusetts will now also back refinancing through bond sales, its statewide foreclosure prevention program "is the most comprehensive and flexible we're aware of to date," Brooks said.
In a separate announcement yesterday, Attorney General Martha Coakley said her office reached a preliminary agreement with subprime lender Fremont Investment & Loan to immediately halt foreclosures on the firm's mortgage loans in Massachusetts.
Material from The Associated Press was used in this report. Eagle staffer Hillary Chabot contributed to this story.
Insure chief may revamp auto system, ignite furor
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | July 12, 2007
For the past 30 years, state insurance commissioners in Massachusetts have held a hearing each spring on whether automobile insurers should be allowed to set their own rates. Like actors following a script, the answer has always been the same: no.
But this year there's a new director with a new script. Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes , a Superior Court judge until five months ago, has signaled that she would like to give auto insurers some flexibility in setting their own premiums, shedding Massachusetts' distinction as the only state in the nation where regulators set all rates.
The commissioner is unlikely to approve unfettered competition. During a hearing in May, Burnes indicated with her questions that she favored allowing companies to set their own rates within certain ranges approved by her. If she follows the recommendations of a gubernatorial study group, she also is likely to retain subsidies for urban drivers and bar companies from using credit scores to set rates. A decision is expected by Monday.
As the high-stakes drama unfolds, insurance industry officials have privately been speculating about what is driving Burnes. Why is a commissioner with just five months on the job pressing so hard for changes that are likely to spawn legal challenges to her authority as well as a political firestorm for the governor?
Drivers aren't clamoring for change. Massachusetts premiums are among the highest in the nation, in part because the accident rate here is the highest in the nation. But rates have been falling here as they have elsewhere around the country, dropping 8.7 percent in 2006 and 11.7 percent this year. Rates are expected to drop sharply again next year.
Attorney General Martha Coakley , half the state's auto insurers, and the two consumer groups that follow auto insurance issues have urged Burnes to continue to set rates next year. Glenn Kaplan , chief of Coakley's insurance and financial services division, warned Burnes in a 10-page memo that she could face "significant and costly litigation" if she tries to usher in on her own a "hybrid" form of competition where companies compete within price ranges.
"There is no reliable basis in the record of this docket to support a shift to deregulation of rates this year," wrote Kaplan, whose office would defend Burnes if she is sued. "Such a sudden shift would be bad for consumers and bad for the long term viability of our marketplace."
James Harrington , executive director of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, a group of auto insurers pushing for competition, said Burnes is handling the competition issue the same way she handled cases for 10 years in Superior Court.
"She's done a dispassionate, objective, thorough, and independent analysis of this auto insurance market," he said.
At one hearing, Burnes said she had read all the prior auto insurance cases and decisions dating back to 1977, the last time a commissioner administratively implemented competition and rates skyrocketed for many young and urban drivers.
Burnes also appears to be following the marching orders of Governor Deval Patrick , her current boss and legal partner at Hill & Barlow in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During the campaign for governor, Patrick indicated he would support increasing competition among auto insurers within the existing regulatory framework.
A study group appointed by Patrick backed limited competition. Some industry officials have said competition would drive down insurance premiums, but the study group supported phased-in competition to appeal to large national insurers such as Progressive Corp., Geico, and Allstate Corp., which currently shun the state because of its heavily regulated system.
"The automobile insurance market is ailing, and some form of competitive rating is essential to attract and retain insurers willing to write this line of business," the study group said.
Those opposed to auto insurance competition in Massachusetts are dismayed that Burnes, the appointee of a Democrat, seems to be following the lead of former Republican Governor Mitt Romney . Romney pushed hard for auto insurance competition in the Legislature, but got nowhere. His insurance commissioner, Julianne M. Bowler , did not implement competition administratively.
According to these officials, Burnes is pushing hard for competition in part because her staff, hand-picked by her pro competition predecessor, is egging her on. Payroll records indicate the staff at the Division of Insurance is largely the same today as it was under Bowler; only 10 of the 128 employees have changed since Burnes took over in late February.
The top advisers are all the same, including legal counsel Elisabeth Ditomassi , who helped draft Romney's auto insurance bill; actuary Cara Blank ; and Deputy Commissioner Joseph Murphy .
At a recent auto insurance hearing, Democratic Senator Marc R. Pacheco of Taunton raised the staff issue with Burnes, telling her "there are still members left from that administration that continue to make recommendations all across the government that, quite frankly, are not or have not been proconsumer."
Burnes assured Pacheco she was making her own decisions, just as she did in a dramatic opening statement at an auto insurance hearing in May.
"I have been hearing through the grapevine, and you all know how active this grapevine is, that I'm not making my own decisions here, that somebody else is telling me what to do, whether it's my staff or somebody else. That's not true," Burnes said. "I take a lot of advice, both from my staff and from all of you. But any decision that you see coming out of this agency I'm responsible for, and I want to make that very clear."
Dear Berkshire Bloggers:
I BELIEVE IT IS A SURE BET THAT NUCIFORO (aka Luciforo) is going to run for U.S. Congress next year and/or in 3 years from now to serve the Boston area corporate elite's large financial institution's interests in Washington, D.C. now that Beacon Hill has approved competitive insurance public policies on the state government level. I hope John W. Olver, the current Congressman representing Western Massachusetts, defeat's his future opponent in a landslide victory!
Here is Luciforo's recent history of conflicts of interest--public and private dealings--with insurance companies:
Part One.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini recently appointed me [Luciforo] to serve as chairman of the newly-formed Committee on Financial Services. The committee will have jurisdiction relating to banks, credit unions, insurance companies, insurance agents, state securities laws, and a variety of other matters.
The Financial Services committee will consider changes to Massachusetts laws relating to automobile insurance, homeowners insurance, mortgage lending, and other matters that have a direct impact on consumers across the Commonwealth.
Part Two.
Luciforo is a Corporate Attorney for a private Boston Law Firm representing Insurance companies.
Go to: http://www.bermananddowell.com/jsp2196567.jsp
Berman & Dowell
210 Commercial Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-1305 Telephone: 617-723-9911 Facsimile: 617-723-6688
bermananddowell.com
Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.
Of Counsel
Email: anuciforo@bermandowell.com
Practice Areas: Professional Liability Defense; Commercial Litigation; Banking Law; Insurance Coverage; Insurance Defense.
Admitted: 1989, Massachusetts; 1990, New York; 1991, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Law School: Boston University, J.D., 1989
College: University of Massachusetts, B.A., 1986
Member: Berkshire and Massachusetts Bar Associations.
Biography: Law Clerk to Chief Judge Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1989-1991. State Senator, Berkshire, Hampshire and Franklin District, 1997-2007 and Member, 1997-2007 and Chairman, 1999-2007, Committee on Financial Services, Massachusetts State Senate.
Born: Pittsfield, Massachusetts, February 26, 1964
ISLN: 904108949
Luciforo was also a recent [Berkshire] State Senator who is against a big rate cut for Insurance companies. Moreover, he is against opening up the Insurance market up to a free market.
Part Three.
Insurers swell senator's war chest
Nuciforo able to raise $137,000 in donations
By Erik Arvidson, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Luciforo's top donor was the Webster-based Commerce Insurance Co., the state's largest auto insurer, which had 18 executives or employees donate a total of $9,000. All of them donated the maximum $500 allowed to an individual under the state's campaign finance laws.
Commerce has lobbied the Legislature heavily to retain the current closely regulated system, opposing a plan by Romney to provide drivers with more choice and to introduce more competition.
» Luciforo's top five donors
These are the top five companies that had employees contributing to state Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr.'s campaign in 2005:
1. Commerce Insurance Co. — $9,000
2. Liberty Mutual — $6,800
3. Nation One Mortgage — $5,350
4. Arbella Insurance Group — $2,400
5. Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas LLP — $1,775
Part Four.
A Boston Globe NEWS ARTICLE
Ex-senator moving on insurance position
Six say Nuciforo sought advice
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
January 16, 2007
Former state senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who was sworn in two weeks ago as Berkshire County register of deeds, is already moving on to his next job search: a bid to become Governor Deval Patrick's commissioner of insurance.
Nuciforo, who has been the Senate chairman of the committee that oversees the state's heavily regulated insurance industry, has told his former colleagues and politically connected figures on Beacon Hill that he wants the insurance post, which would pay about $120,000 a year. The move would require him to resign as register, which pays him about $80,000 a year but also permits him to practice law. ...
-----
State's auto insurance could shift
By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle
Sunday, July 15, 2007
BOSTON — Newly appointed state Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burns will announce tomorrow whether competition will be introduced into the state's regulated auto-insurance market.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where the state sets auto insurance rates. Insurers and legislators have been arguing for years over whether competition will improve the auto-insurance market, pointing to the effect on rates, coverage and the number of drivers insured. For many motorists, however, the question is simple — will I pay less? The answer, at least for the most recent state to introduce a slightly regulated form of competition into the auto insurance market, is yes.
Drivers in New Jersey — which allows insurance companies to set auto insurance rates within a certain percent range each year — have seen their premiums go down by $53 since 2003, when they approved sweeping auto insurance reform.
Complaints also have gone down, from 5,770 consumer complaints in 2003 to 2,465 in 2006, while the number of companies offering auto insurance in New Jersey has gone up from 62 to 70. Massachusetts currently has 19 carriers.
James Harrington, executive director for the Massachusetts Insurance Foundation, believes that this is the best step for the state. He represents a group of auto insurers pressing for competition.
"We have recommended reform for years, but we've also suggested on a regular basis that we need to protect existing subsidies," Harrington said.
So what is keeping former state Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, along with Attorney General Martha Coakley, consumer advocates, urban legislators and half of the state's auto insurers from supporting a move toward competition? What you get for the money.
"(New Jersey drivers) have a policy insurance product that is significantly less than what you used to be able to buy there," said Deirdre Cummings, MassPIRG consumer advocate. "They're seeing a drop in rates because they're selling half a loaf of bread."
Cummings served on the seven-member Auto Insurance Study Group selected by Gov. Deval L. Patrick to review competition and report on the best way to introduce it to the state.
The report that the group issued called for a move toward introducing competition, but it also emphasized other routes to lower auto insurance costs, such as improving high-risk intersections. Members expressed deep concern about insurers' ability to cherry-pick good drivers using not only age but also credit scores and marital status to jack up rates.
Another deterrent is that rates are falling already. The average driver has seen his or her premium go down by 30 percent in the past three years. Why fix something that isn't broken? Nuciforo said.
Coakley, who would have to defend Burns in possible lawsuits if she goes ahead with allowing competition, argued against the change, saying that the sudden switch would spark lawsuits and confuse consumers.
But perhaps the biggest argument against change is history. Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, said current lawmakers can learn from the attempt to introduce competition in the 1970s, which led to astronomical rates for urban drivers.
"We need to address the systemic issues on the part of the Legislature by addressing fraud, driving habits and trying to get at the root cause of the prices instead of getting a quick fix. I'd have more of an appetite to go that route," Downing said.
New Jersey did not go to a completely deregulated system, such as Massachusetts did in 1976, and it still subsidizes its high-risk drivers. A portion of every premium goes toward subsidizing urban drivers so they are not paying rates they cannot afford, said Jim Gardner, spokesman for the Department of Banking and Insurance in New Jersey.
The state also is currently redrawing territories to try and include a mix of urban and suburban in each to ensure that urban drivers do not get whacked, Gardner said.
Patrick, although he implied support for introducing competition during his campaign, has remained tight-lipped on the issue. He refused to answer a reporter's questions about allowing competition into the auto-insurance market last Thursday.
Burns would not speak about the upcoming ruling, and Coakley declined to discuss her views on deregulating auto insurance.
-----
Auto Insurance
Insurance reform to give more choice
Providers will be permitted to propose their own rates under a 'managed competition' system.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Wire and Staff Reports
BOSTON — Car owners could gradually see more competition in the auto insurance market under a plan unveiled yesterday by the state insurance commissioner.
The transition to "managed competition" will continue to give the state strong regulatory control to protect consumers from excessive rates, but will also introduce more competition and create more choice and lower premiums, Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes said.
Massachusetts in the only state where state regulators, not the market, set car insurance rates.
Consumers should be able to take advantage of the new competitive rates for policies renewing on or after April 1, 2008, Burnes said.
"Taking gradual steps to introduce competition to the auto insurance market will have a positive impact on consumers across Massachusetts," Burnes said.
But for many local legislators, the devil is in the details.
"We're definitely going to look at the long-term viability and where it's going," said Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield. "I thought it was a pretty good middle ground, considering that there is some compelling evidence that some changes are required to ensure we continue to bring rates down."
In March, a panel appointed by Gov. Deval L. Patrick to study ways of reforming Massachusetts' auto insurance system recommended curbing state regulation and moving toward competitive, market-based rates.
The panel found that competitive rating is "essential to attract and retain insurers to write this line of business in the Commonwealth."
Nineteen insurers currently write auto insurance policies in Massachusetts. Since 1990, 35 companies, including national carriers, have left the market.
The state's insurance rates have been going down in recent years because of decreasing claims, and a crackdown on auto insurance fraud.
Under the new regulations, which don't need legislative approval, insurance companies will still need to get the approval of Burnes' office, submitting their proposed insurance products and rates before offering them to the public.
"It's not like the grocery store, where they can have any price they want," she said.
Burnes said she decided to take the step to partially deregulate the industry now because the industry is relatively healthy at the moment and rates are trending down anyway.
She also said she will view with "extreme skepticism" insurers who propose to base rates on socio-economic factors, including education, occupation, home ownership or credit scores.
Burnes said she'll retain her power to disapprove rates before they become effective, prevent rates that are unfairly discriminatory and step in after rates take effect if they appear excessive in any given territory.
The plan has its skeptics.
Deirdre Cummings, program director for the consumer advocacy group MassPIRG, said she's reserving judgment until she's had more time to study the issue.
Cummings it would be better to ban outright rates based on socio-economic factors like education, occupation and home ownership. She also hoped the new regulations are the subject of a public hearing before they are made final.
"There are clearly ways to design a competitive insurance market preserving consumer protections," she said, reserving judgment until she sees more details.
Stephen D'Amato of the Center for Insurance Research, a consumer advocacy nonprofit in Cambridge, said drivers could actually end up losing their choice of insurer under the plan.
Right now, any driver can choose any insurer, but under the plan, D'Amato said, insurers could try to limit access to discount and lower rates based on factors that mirror race and income.
"(Burnes) can say it will increase choice, but today you have total flexibility," he said. "Under her plan, (insurers) can use a slew of factors that we believe are discriminatory."
Others applauded the plan.
Joseph Meador, a professor in the college of business at Northeastern University and a member of Patrick's auto insurance task force, said Burnes' proposal bring some reality to the auto insurance rate-setting process.
"Hopefully (insurers) will be able to develop more accurate rates and be able to reflect groups of drivers' actual cost in setting rates, rather than some arbitrary statewide average," he said.
Fred Eppinger, chief executive officer of The Hanover Insurance Group, called the decision "thoughtful and measured" and said it will "enable quality agents to provide their customers with more choices — more products and services."
Patrick, who appointed Burnes, said the decision will "bring greater choice and savings to consumers, reduce costs and maintain equity and fairness for all Massachusetts drivers."
In a separate decision issued yesterday, Burnes adopted an assigned risk plan, changing the way high-risk drivers are distributed among insurers.
Hillary Chabot of the Eagle Boston Bureau and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-----
State to let drivers shop for best rates
'Managed competition' for insurers starts in '08
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | July 17, 2007
Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes yesterday said she plans to give the 4 million drivers in Massachusetts a taste of auto insurance competition next year, letting them shop around for the best deal for the first time in 30 years.
Instead of approving one set of rates that every company must charge, which has been past practice, Burnes said she plans to let companies set their own rates for 2008, under close supervision from the Division of Insurance.
The new rate-setting process will start April 1.
Burnes called the new system "managed competition," but offered few details about how it would work. She said details would emerge when she issues regulations covering the competitive rate-setting process.
She promised at least one public hearing on the regulations.
In a telephone interview, Burnes said companies would file their rates with supporting analysis, and they would take effect unless her office rejected them.
She said companies could base their premiums on such factors as driving record, the number and severity of at-fault accidents, and traffic violations.
She said she would view "with extreme skepticism" any rate proposal based on socioeconomic considerations, such as education, occupation, home ownership, or an individual's credit score.
In materials accompanying her decision, she said her managed competition would fall short of "unfettered competition." She said it would ensure that good drivers, irrespective of where they live, would receive lower rates. She said it would also give insur ers more flexibility to introduce "competitive products."
Separately, Burnes said she plans to change the method of assigning drivers whom no insurer wants to cover voluntarily . Currently, those higher-risk drivers can select any insurer, and the insurer then decides whether to assign the driver to an industry pool, where profits and losses are split among the companies doing business in the state.
Under Burnes's proposal, such drivers would be randomly assigned, with the number of assignments to any one carrier based on that company's market share. Drivers who are assigned will lose the ability to select their own insurer.
The decision was issued after 6 last night. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley , who had urged Burnes not to introduce competition and warned that she might face an industry lawsuit if she did, declined to comment. The spokeswoman said Coakley had not had time to review the decision.
James Ermilio , a senior vice president at Commerce Insurance of Webster, the state's largest automobile insurer, with more than a third of the market, said a system allowing the company to set its own rates would be beneficial. But Ermilio, who has opposed earlier attempts to introduce competition, said much would depend on the details and how agents and young and urban drivers would be affected.
"If the details protect those interests, then it's going to be a good system for us," he said.
The last time a state insurance commissioner permitted competition among auto insurers was in 1977. Rates at that time rose 14.5 percent statewide, but rates in some urban areas skyrocketed. The seven-month experiment was quickly canceled, and insurance commissioners ever since have set all auto insurance rates.
"We can no longer be held hostage to the failed 1977 experience," Burnes wrote in her 25-page decision.
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where regulators set all auto insurance rates. Since 1990, 35 companies have abandoned the state because of its insurance system, according to the division. Many major national insurers, including Progressive Corp., Geico, and Allstate Corp., currently shun the state because of its heavily regulated system.
Several other states, including most recently New Jersey, have opened their markets to greater competition in the past decade. The moves have attracted more insurers to those states and often have resulted in lower rates for good drivers. But in some cases, rates for young and urban drivers have risen. Young drivers tend to have higher accident rates because of their lack of experience, while rates in urban areas are higher because of greater congestion, theft, and fraud.
Burnes vowed to protect young and urban drivers as Massachusetts moves toward auto insurance competition.
Currently, suburban and experienced drivers pay slightly higher premiums, so the rates of urban and inexperienced drivers can be kept relatively low. Burnes promised to continue the existing system of subsidies.
"We're going to continue to protect them through the regulatory process," she said.
Burnes said she believes there is too much emphasis in the current rates on where a car is garaged, which she says penalizes good drivers. She said she intends to review the number of territories in use in 2009.
Across the country, auto insurance rates have been falling as safer cars and other factors have resulted in a drop in the number of claims. Massachusetts auto insurance rates fell 8.7 percent in 2006 and 11.7 percent this year. Industry officials say they expect rates to continue falling in 2009, and Burnes said rates should fall further under the new competitive rate-setting system.
"Structurally, they should," Burnes said.
Burnes, a former Superior Court judge who was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick in late February, said she decided to move to competition because the governing statute demanded it. Under the law, she said, the commissioner sets the rates only if competitive rates would be excessive, or lead to the insolvency of insurers. She said testimony she heard indicated neither of those conditions existed.
Burnes said she briefed Patrick on her plans last week, but noted that "he had no input" on the decision. Patrick's office issued a statement last night saying he supported her.
"I am confident that she will keep a steady hand on this process as it moves forward to ensure that all Massachusetts consumers realize the benefits inherent to this transition," Patrick said.
-----
- Jonathan A. Melle
Car insurers: Competition should work
But critics say new system will end up penalizing some
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | July 18, 2007
Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes's decision to introduce "managed" auto insurance competition next year won strong industry support yesterday, even from companies that have opposed competition in the past.
Attorney General Martha Coakley , several state senators, and consumer activists voiced concerns, but they adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the changes.
National insurers that have shunned the state for years because of its heavily regulated system applauded Burnes's decision but said they weren't ready to start selling policies here anytime soon.
Burnes, a Superior Court judge until Governor Deval Patrick appointed her insurance commissioner in late February, said Monday night that she planned to open the state's auto insurance market to "managed competition," starting April 1.
The commissioner offered few details, but said insurers would be allowed to set their own rates, subject to close supervision by the Division of Insurance. Burnes also said she would start randomly assigning drivers that no insurer wants to cover voluntarily to carriers.
The two initiatives are the most sweeping changes to the state's auto insurance system since 1977, the last time a commissioner approved competitive rate-setting. That experiment proved to be a disaster, as rates skyrocketed in some urban areas. Regulators scrapped competition after just seven months and began setting uniform rates that every company was required to charge.
Burnes now says she plans to scrap the state rate-setting process -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- dismissing concerns raised by Coakley, industry opponents, and consumer groups.
Coakley had said that auto insurance rates might rise, particularly in urban areas, if competition was introduced. She also warned Burnes that she would probably be sued if she tried to introduce competition administratively.
In an appendix to her decision, Burnes called Coakley's "doomsday prophecy" about rising rates "wholly unsupported." She also said the threat of litigation was not an appropriate basis for inaction.
Coakley yesterday issued a muted statement, saying she had concerns about whether the Massachusetts market was ready for competition but indicating she was moving on, gearing up to scrutinize company rate filings.
Commerce Insurance of Webster, the state's largest automobile insurer and in the past a fierce of opponent of change, indicated yesterday that it would not try to block the changes with a lawsuit. Company officials said they would focus on making money under the new system.
"We're fully on board with this. We will support the commissioner," said Gerard Fels , president and chief executive of Commerce, on a conference call with analysts.
Patrick administration officials met with five senators opposed to the changes and urged them to postpone any action until Burnes develops the regulatory framework for managed competition.
State Senator Dianne Wilkerson , a Democrat from Roxbury, said the changes ordered by Burnes were being implemented so out-of-state insurers could come into Massachusetts and make as much money as they do elsewhere.
Wilkerson said urban drivers will be the big losers under Burnes's managed competition. She said urban drivers, because of where they live and not because of how they drive, would be randomly assigned to carriers and denied the ability to shop for the best rate.
"People who live in cities will not be participating in competition," Wilkerson said. "We may be heading down a path where we turn our regulated system into a segregated system."
Burnes indicated she would not allow insurers to use socioeconomic factors such as credit scores, income, occupation, and home ownership status in setting rates.
But the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group and the Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge said insurers would use those socioeconomic factors to decide whom to insure. The consumer groups predicted hundreds of thousands of drivers, possibly a million, would end up being randomly assigned to carriers, losing their ability to shop around.
Douglas Nadeau , a spokesman for Illinois-based State Farm Insurance, which refuses to write auto insurance in Massachusetts, called the Burnes decision "a positive step in the right direction." But he said the company was still concerned about the way experienced and suburban drivers in Massachusetts pay higher rates to subsidize the rates of young and urban drivers.
Cristy Cote , a spokeswoman for Ohio-based Progressive Group of Insurance Cos., which also shuns the state, said the company was encouraged by the changes. "We look forward to the day when we can offer our private passenger auto products to Massachusetts drivers," she said.
Bruce Mohl can be reached at mohl@globe.com.
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Insurance unsettlement
July 18, 2007
INSURANCE Commissioner Nonnie Burnes made some auto insurers happy this week by dismantling the decades-old "fixed and established" system by which the state sets the annual maximum rate used by insurers to calculate premiums. No such joyous sounds, however, are coming from consumer organizations concerned about what these changes could mean for young and urban drivers.
Next year, insurers will begin proposing their own rates.
Burnes says she is confident that her "managed competition" system will lead to lower premiums for many of the state's drivers. Suburban motorists who look like good risks to insurance underwriters could catch a break, especially if there are no teen drivers in the family. But a few years down the road, upward of 1 million Massachusetts drivers could find themselves thrown into an assigned risk pool, randomly assigned to an insurer, and slapped with higher premiums and the loss of discounts, according to the nonprofit group MASSPIRG.
Burnes says she is motivated by a desire to bring lower rates to all consumers with good driving records, regardless of where they live. We have no reason to question her sincerity. But her case would be more convincing if she would unequivocally reject the practices of national insurers now looking to expand into Massachusetts. In other states, they use extraneous factors, such as a driver's education, occupation, homeownership status, and credit score, when setting rates.
In her decision Monday, Burnes wrote that any such efforts by insurers would be met with "extreme skepticism" on her part. And in an interview yesterday, she said she doubts any company could provide compelling evidence justifying the use of such data. Yet she did not categorically rule out the application of socioeconomic factors that would likely fall especially hard on urban and immigrant drivers. She needs to set that limit specifically before national insurers arrive with their big promises and small print.
At least during the transition stage, Burnes says, she will protect the system that flattens rates for urban and inexperienced drivers. But the future is uncertain. In Massachusetts, about 80 percent of drivers pay a little more so that 20 percent of drivers can pay a lot less. That subsidy is a significant reason that Massachusetts has the second-lowest rate of uninsured motorists in the nation. It would be a shame, and a potentially costly one for all insured motorists, to see that rate rise.
Burnes, a former Superior Court judge, isn't reluctant to use her discretion or assert control. But it's one thing to manage a courtroom and another to control an auto insurance market with roughly 4 million autos. Until she supplies more details about her deregulation efforts -- especially the factors that mark a driver as high risk -- there will be a lot of nervous drivers around here.
ARCHIVES
COMMENTARY - Car owners need true insurance reform
By MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS
Nonnie Burnes, the new insurance commissioner, has just ruled that Massachusetts will take another stab at competitive auto insurance rating.
As the governor who tried it in 1977, with disastrous results, I share the concerns of many about how it is going to affect a lot of Massachusetts motorists, particularly those in our older urban communities such as Quincy and Brockton.
Fortunately, the commissioner has made it clear that she will not permit insurance companies under the new system to discriminate against certain drivers for reasons other than their own driving records. Nonnie Burnes and Deval Patrick were young lawyers in the law firm I left to become governor, and I have a lot of respect for both of them. But they are going to have to be very tough if the move to competitive rating is going to avoid the results we experienced some 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, competitive rating in whatever form isn’t going to save the system a lot of money. Some people will pay less, and some people will pay more, but unless there is fundamental reform of the auto insurance system itself, there won’t be much, if anything, in the way of overall savings, especially for motorists in our older cities.
That is where Auto Choice comes in and why it makes so much sense. Auto Choice is a simple but important reform that for the first time would give Massachusetts motorists a choice of straight no-fault coverage for all medical expenses, lost wages and other economic losses but without pain and suffering or the option to remain in the liability/fault system with all its delays, uncertainties and hefty lawyers’ fees.
The choice would be yours, and yours alone. And if you chose straight no-fault, your premium would drop by several hundred dollars year. In Quincy, that would mean annual savings in excess of $400 dollars a year. In Weymouth, it would be a little less than $400, while Plymouth would save about $340 a year. And in Brockton, the average annual savings per motorists would be more than $550 a year.
In fact, if the vast majority of Massachusetts motorists elected the no-fault option, the overall savings would be the equivalent of a $1 billion tax cut without any loss of revenue to the state treasury.
And make no mistake about it- the auto insurance premiums we pay are every bit as much a tax as any other burden imposed on us by state government.
At a time when the middle class in this country and state are carrying heavier and heavier burdens and getting almost none of the tax cuts that much wealthier people have been getting since 2001, here is a chance to give them some real relief and remove a big burden on the state’s courts as well.
The Legislature has already taken an important first step in this direction. The Legislative Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Quincy’s own Rep. Ron Mariano and Sen. Stephen Buoniconti, D-Springfield, has for the first time reported the bill out favorably from the committee.
Now it is up to us. If we want real rate relief and several hundred dollars worth of cuts in our auto insurance premiums every year, we have to let the governor, the insurance commissioner and our legislators know that Auto Choice is the kind of fundamental reform we need.
Nobody really knows what impact competitive rating will have on us individually.
But the savings from Auto Choice are real - and they will benefit everybody.
Michael S. Dukakis was a three-term governor of Massachusetts and the 1988 Democratic nominee for president. He teaches political science at Northeastern University and University of California, Los Angeles.
Copyright 2007 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Thursday, July 19, 2007
Re: NEWS ARTICLE -- "Fender Bender: Last year, opponents thought they had killed auto-insurance reform for good. Its resurrection could be a headache for Deval Patrick" (The [Boston] Phoenix Online, By DAVID S. BERNSTEIN, July 26, 2007): "Advocates of auto-insurance reform insist that naysayers such as Pacheco are a small but vocal minority, and that they are the pawns of insurance companies, including Arbella, Plymouth Rock, and Commerce Insurance, which would be hurt by increased competition from national insurers that currently shun the state because of the restrictive rate-setting system."
"[O]pponents of the reform...are pointing to...specific high-placed employees who formerly worked for State Representative Ronald Mariano, a Democrat who has spearheaded auto-insurance-reform legislation."
"But if the Patrick administration was for sale on this issue, the other side — the losing one in this past week’s announcement — was also bidding. Reform opponents Arbella and Commerce Insurance were among those Platinum inauguration contributors. Commerce employees and board members also gave tens of thousands to Patrick’s campaign."
THE WAR IS NOT OVER ...
"How well he (Gov. Patrick) quells those concerns may be seen in the coming months, in how big a fight senators, including Berry, Menard, Pacheco, and Wilkerson, are willing to put up to preserve the auto-insurance status quo. / It would be an unwelcome challenge to the administration from the left, particularly if it is joined by Senate President Therese Murray, who is said to be sympathetic to the anti-reform argument — and who has herself received contributions from Commerce Insurance board members."
-----
News
Fender bender
Last year, opponents thought they had killed auto-insurance reform for good. Its resurrection could be a headache for Deval Patrick.
By DAVID S. BERNSTEIN
July 26, 2007 11:52:16 AM
Recent signs on Beacon Hill indicate to some that Deval Patrick is not quite the progressive, populist lefty that many of his supporters — and detractors — think he is. On issue after issue, Patrick’s instinct is to offer breaks and incentives to corporations and large nonprofits, and it’s beginning to diminish the support of an increasing number of legislators — including several state senators who are crucial to the success on his more ambitious agenda items.
Pushing several would-be allies over the edge was the announcement this past Monday that Patrick’s insurance commissioner, Nonnie Burnes, will end Massachusetts’s decades-long experiment with auto-insurance-rate regulation. Instead of a state commission setting those rates, insurance companies will now have the freedom to compete, within limits. Liberal legislators, who argue that the current system protects poor, young, and urban drivers, have expressed shock that Patrick will usher in this change; they fear that insurers will raise rates most on those who can least afford it, and will punish drivers based on location, credit history, and factors other than one’s driving record. Although Burnes says that she will protect against such outcomes, opponents still think this is a bad, anti-consumer idea that they believed had died when Mitt Romney left office.
This auto-insurance stunner, along with other perceived pro-business policies, has helped push progressive senators Joan Menard, Frederick Berry, Steven Panagiotakas, Marc Pacheco, Dianne Wilkerson, and Patricia Jehlen to sour on Patrick, to varying degrees. These are pols who supported Patrick’s candidacy, and should be solid allies now that he is in office. “There are a lot of unhappy people in the building right now,” says Wilkerson.
This dynamic is contrary to Patrick’s public reputation, which was forged by the high-profile fight over closing corporate-tax loopholes. That battle cast Patrick as the populist, and the legislature — House Speaker Sal DiMasi in particular — as the corporate shill.
But aside from that one issue — which Patrick pushed for the fiscally conservative purpose of balancing the budget without adding new taxes on residents — the governor has embraced a string of what some see as corporate-friendly policies.
Patrick has taken heat, for example, for alleged “corporate welfare” in pushing a $10 million grant to the developers of Boston’s Columbus Center. He enthusiastically supported, and this past week signed, new tax breaks for movie studios to film in the Commonwealth. He supports a sales-tax holiday, seen by some as a gift to retail chains with little benefit to the state. He has endorsed financial breaks to help those building the Boston University biotech lab and the Cape Cod wind farm. And in his bio-med/stem-cell bill, he intends to push a billion dollars of investment to companies and universities.
New gov, old fight
“For a long time, we’ve been the Democratic shield stopping the Republican bullets,” says Pacheco of the State Senate. “We finally have a Democratic governor, and we keep having the same kinds of battles.”
Advocates of auto-insurance reform insist that naysayers such as Pacheco are a small but vocal minority, and that they are the pawns of insurance companies, including Arbella, Plymouth Rock, and Commerce Insurance, which would be hurt by increased competition from national insurers that currently shun the state because of the restrictive rate-setting system.
Nevertheless, criticisms from liberals in the legislature have prompted the governor to unleash his PR machine, to insulate him from Burnes’s decision. Although Patrick is publicly supporting the reform, he has done so with tepid language. Meanwhile, his staff and Burnes herself have stressed that she worked independently, apolitically, and non-ideologically in making her decision. Together they have hammered that point home in a series of public comments.
Burnes tells the Phoenix that she did not have any conversation — any at all — with Patrick concerning auto-insurance reform until she briefed him on her decision days before announcing it publicly. Instead, Burnes, a former Superior Court judge, argues she was required by statute, not driven by ideology, to implement the change. “It really was a legal decision,” she says.
Patrick has another reason to insist it was not his decision. Just three weeks before the Burnes bombshell, Patrick solicited, and accepted, $20,000 worth of contributions from executives at Liberty Mutual, the company fighting hardest for reform. That looks unseemly at best, unless Patrick really was totally uninvolved in the decision.
According to people close to the issue, Patrick’s advisors had to be aware that Burnes’s decision to adopt a market-driven rate system would cause political problems. Those advisors also knew that they gained little or nothing by it: even supporters of the reform concede that the public isn’t clamoring for such a change.
The fact that Patrick allowed Burnes to proceed, then, certainly looks like an example of good government as pledged on the campaign trail — just as his “corporate welfare” items look to many to be smart economic-growth initiatives. In this light, Patrick hired Burnes based on competence rather than ideology or loyalty, gave her the freedom to act independently, and didn’t allow politics to get in the way.
But the reaction by angry legislators demonstrates just how hard it is to insulate any governmental action from charges of politics.
For starters, opponents of the reform, including Pacheco, are pointing to a large number of Romney holdovers on Burnes’s staff — and to specific high-placed employees who formerly worked for State Representative Ronald Mariano, a Democrat who has spearheaded auto-insurance-reform legislation. Those staffers, critics say, influenced the decision by feeding Burnes bad information. Burnes denies the charge.
Then there’s the money trail, including that recent bonanza from almost all of Liberty Mutual’s management team. Edmund Kelly, Liberty Mutual’s CEO, stood beside Romney when the then-governor denounced the existing system as “Stalinist” in 2005. In 2006, Kelly and other Liberty Mutual executives contributed more than $20,000 to Kerry Healey and her running mate, but since the election have opened their wallets for Patrick (see “Crash Test Dummies” sidebar).
But if the Patrick administration was for sale on this issue, the other side — the losing one in this past week’s announcement — was also bidding. Reform opponents Arbella and Commerce Insurance were among those Platinum inauguration contributors. Commerce employees and board members also gave tens of thousands to Patrick’s campaign.
The war isn’t over
Public attacks on Burnes’s staff, or on contributions to Patrick’s campaign, are not as potentially damaging as the other charge being leveled: that Patrick is, at heart, the corporate boardroom director that progressives were willing to overlook when electing him.
If that perception takes hold, particularly in the State Senate, Patrick could find himself under increasing attack from the left — as he was recently by state senators who challenged him to debar Big Dig villain Bechtel from eligibility for state contracts.
How well he quells those concerns may be seen in the coming months, in how big a fight senators, including Berry, Menard, Pacheco, and Wilkerson, are willing to put up to preserve the auto-insurance status quo.
It would be an unwelcome challenge to the administration from the left, particularly if it is joined by Senate President Therese Murray, who is said to be sympathetic to the anti-reform argument — and who has herself received contributions from Commerce Insurance board members.
--
Crash test dummies
After their candidate, Kerry Healey, was defeated, Liberty Mutual quickly began buttering the other side of the bread: the company was one of nine “Platinum” $50,000 donors to the Patrick-Murray Inaugural Committee.
Another reform-boosting company, Worcester-based Hanover Insurance, has been particularly cozy with lieutenant governor and former Worcester mayor Timothy Murray, observers say. Hanover was also a Platinum donor for the inauguration, and bestowed a $2 million gift for a Murray pet project: restoration of Worcester’s Poli Palace Theatre. Hanover’s chairman, Michael Angelini, was a co-chair of Patrick’s transition committee.
-----
New insurance chief goes beyond expectations
Auto deregulation shocks industry
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | July 23, 2007
When Nonnie S. Burnes was appointed insurance commissioner in February, the industry group pushing for auto insurance competition in Massachusetts thought all was lost.
The assumption was that Burnes, a Superior Court judge who knew nothing about the Byzantine world of auto insurance, would take a long time just to get up to speed. The fact that she was a Democrat and a liberal -- the opposite of her pro-competition predecessor -- made many insurance industry executives nervous.
James Harrington , executive director of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, said former Governor Mitt Romney had championed auto insurance deregulation. By contrast, Governor Deval Patrick had said almost nothing about auto insurance on the campaign trail and Burnes, his pick for commissioner, had a blank slate.
"We viewed the incoming Patrick administration with some degree of trepidation," he said.
But Burnes last week shocked almost everyone. She not only mastered the minutiae of auto insurance regulation in a matter of months, but also set out to break a 30-year-old industry stalemate on deregulation. She said she planned to usher in "managed competition" next year, allowing automobile insurers to set their own rates under the close supervision of state regulators.
The decision, which will end Massachusetts's distinction as the only state where regulators set all auto insurance rates, will probably have a major impact on the wallets of the state's four million drivers.
Whether the result is positive will depend largely on Burnes, who has promised to protect urban drivers from the rate shock they suffered the last time competition was tried, in 1977. Burnes has offered few details about how she will do that; she plans to develop a regulatory framework for competition over the next three months.
While her predecessors agonized over the politics of auto insurance deregulation and were immobilized by worries of what could go wrong, Burnes tuned out the noise and approached the issue the same way she approached cases the past 10 years as a Superior Court judge.
"She's used to arbitrating disputes and this whole issue of auto insurance deregulation is a classic case of, 'He said, she said,' " said Representative Ronald Mariano , a Quincy Democrat who has been caught in the corporate crossfire many times as head of the Legislature's Financial Services Committee.
Monica Halas , who works at Greater Boston Legal Services and is a long time friend of the commissioner, said Burnes has always been a quick study. "She grasps things very quickly," Halas said. "She's someone who's not afraid of making a decision."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[Was Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick really only referring to Berkshire County's future special interest Congressman, excuse me, I mean, the Boston area's Private Attorney for wealthy Insurance Companies, Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. (aka Luciforo) in the following quote?]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Patrick said he did not want someone [such as Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. (aka "Luciforo")]steeped in the world of insurance as commissioner. "It was important to have an insurance commissioner who could bring a fresh set of eyes to the task at hand, who would look at the facts, not just politics, and did not come with a fixed position on critical issues," he said.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[REFERENCE: A Past Boston Globe NEWS ARTICLE: "Ex-senator moving on insurance position: Six say Nuciforo sought advice" (By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, January 16, 2007): "Former state senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who was sworn in two weeks ago as Berkshire County register of deeds, is already moving on to his next job search: a bid to become Governor Deval Patrick's commissioner of insurance. ..."]
--
[Recent Source: "State's auto insurance could shift" (By Hillary Chabot, Eagle Boston Bureau, The Berkshire Eagle, Sunday, July 15, 2007): "So what is keeping former state Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, along with Attorney General Martha Coakley, consumer advocates, urban legislators and half of the state's auto insurers from supporting a move toward competition? What you get for the money. ...Another deterrent is that rates are falling already. The average driver has seen his or her premium go down by 30 percent in the past three years. Why fix something that isn't broken? Nuciforo said."
REFERENCE: A Past Berkshire Eagle NEWS ARTICLE: "Insurers swell senator's war chest: Nuciforo able to raise $137,000 in donations" (By Erik Arvidson, Eagle Boston Bureau
The Berkshire Eagle, Saturday, January 21, 2006): "[L]uciforo's top donor was the Webster-based Commerce Insurance Co., the state's largest auto insurer, which had 18 executives or employees donate a total of $9,000. All of them donated the maximum $500 allowed to an individual under the state's campaign finance laws. / Commerce has lobbied the Legislature heavily to retain the current closely regulated system, opposing a plan by Romney to provide drivers with more choice and to introduce more competition."
» Luciforo's top five donors
These are the top five companies that had employees contributing to state Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr.'s campaign in 2005:
1. Commerce Insurance Co. — $9,000
2. Liberty Mutual — $6,800
3. Nation One Mortgage — $5,350
4. Arbella Insurance Group — $2,400
5. Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas LLP — $1,775]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Burnes said the decision to introduce auto insurance competition was entirely a legal one. There were no marching orders from the governor -- she says she would not have taken the job if there were -- and no personal preference for either competition or state regulation.
"There was no ideological motivation," she said. "I don't have a business philosophy, really."
Burnes says she did what state law required. She says state law compelled her to let auto insurers set their own rates after she determined that competition was not "insufficient to assure that rates will not be excessive" or "detrimental to the solvency of insurers."
Burnes turned 65 in May, a milestone, she says, that entitles her to a 25 percent discount on her auto insurance under Massachusetts law. She may be of retirement age and a grandmother (her three children are all married with children ), but Burnes shows no signs of slowing down.
She met her husband of 44 years, Richard Burnes Jr., in college during the early 1960s. She was studying political science at Wellesley College and he was at Harvard University. They currently live on Beacon Hill and also have a home in Osterville. He is a founder and partner of Charles River Ventures, a venture capital firm based in Waltham.
They go skiing every year in British Columbia, but not at a resort. They go heliskiing, which is off-trail downhill skiing in which the participants are transported to the top of the mountain by helicopter .
The Burneses also like to sail racing boats. They recently participated in a race from Marblehead to Halifax in Canada and race from Newport, R.I., to Bermuda every other year. Burnes also likes to play tennis, garden, and read. Occasionally she baby-sits for her eight grandchildren.
Burnes serves on the board of trustees of Northeastern University. She graduated from the law school there in 1978 after taking more than 10 years off after college to raise her family.
After law school, she spent 19 years at the politically connected law firm of Hill & Barlow, where she was a partner along with Patrick. She handled a wide variety of cases, but is perhaps best known for representing parents who sued the state seeking better care for their mentally retarded children at state schools. The case, handled by US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro , brought about sweeping changes in the handling of institutionalized residents.
Governor William F. Weld, another veteran of Hill & Barlow, nominated Burnes for a Superior Court judgeship in 1996. She was a judge for a decade, handling everything from murder cases to medical malpractice suits, but was ready for a change when she was asked to join Patrick's administration.
"She likes judging, but she wanted a different experience," said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford , a friend and former colleague of Burnes.
Her new post is her first outside the legal profession, but it is not a big leap philosophically. "To be a great lawyer you have to have an attitude, the right attitude," she said in a May 25 commencement address at the Northeastern University School of Law. "You have to look for the opportunities to work for the public good wherever and however you choose to practice your profession."
-----
www.nuciforo.com
Website under construction.
Please call 413-442-6810 with any questions.
Monday, July 30, 2007, 7:15 P.M.
East News
Mass. Agents Could Be Losers Under Competitive Auto Rating
July 31, 2007
Massachusetts insurance agents aren't happy about the decision to introduce competitive rating into the state's price-regulated private passenger auto insurance system. They enjoy the best market share (86 percent) in the country under the current system and don't want to see that jeopardized. Their commissions are also protected under the current fix-and-establish system.
"This is going to have a big impact on agents," Frank Mancini, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents, said.
Mancini is worried that some smaller agencies, perhaps as many as 20 percent of agencies in the Commonwealth, might have to consider merging or even going out of business as a result of the move to a competitive system.
The Democratic administration of Gov. Deval Patrick, led by Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes, has shaken up the agents and the industry with her surprise decision to end the fix-and-establish pricing system and reinstall a file-and-use system under which insurers gain more control over what they charge.
Burnes is introducing what she is calling "managed competition" beginning in April, 2008.
Under the revived file-and use system, insurers will be able to propose rates and rating criteria and put them into use unless the insurance department disapproves them.
Burnes plans on deveoping a regulatory framework, "which will include parameters within which insurers will be free to propose premiums, considering such factors as driving record, number and severity of at-fault accidents, and traffic violations."
She has called for suggestions by Aug. 1 for this regulatory framework. She plans a public hearing in August and hopes to issue draft regulations in September.
Insurers will not be freed to price completely on their own. Burnes vowed that the state will retain a "strong yet supple regulatory oversight" to ensure that good drivers enjoy the benefits of managed competition, regardless of where they garage their cars.
She also indicated that she will limit the rating factors insurers will be permitted to use in pricing. "I will view with extreme skepticism any rate proposal that is based on socio-economic considerations such as education, occupation, home ownership or credit report or score," she advised.
Mancini knows agents will be watching for the details of the process and plan, particularly as they relate to their commissions, which are now included in the fix-and-establish rating process.
There is one statutory quirk that could comfort agencies. The state has a law that guarantees that agent commissions will continue under state control, based on the previous year's figures, for four years after any switch to competitive rating, according to Mancini.
August 20, 2007
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, Pols, News Media, & the People:
Last week, my mom told me over a family vacation dinner that someone anonymously mailed her a copy of a previous email that I sent concerning "the most corrupt Pol in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. (aka Luciforo)". My mom told me that I had used the alter-name "Luciforo" over six-times. I have a feeling about who would use intimidating methods like this to silence me, and I strongly assume that Cliff Nilan had something to do with this. Of course, Cliff Nilan can kiss my ASS!
I am only sorry that I did not use the word "Luciforo" to describe Nuciforo many more times than I had wrote his alter-name!
There was an interesting story on PBS' Now this past Friday evening about Insurance Companies' corrupted special interests within State Legislatures throughout the nation. Below, please find pasted copies of the news stories about how the Insurance Industry has been transformed into an investment capital funding source (on the backs of the poor and middle class, of course) for the benefit of the wealthy financial institutions -- part of the Corporate Elite that rules our "Democratic" Government. "We the People live only to serve our Corporate Elite Masters" should be the new preface to our now in-theory-only national Constitution.
After listening to my wonderful mother Beverly tell me about the aforementioned anonymous letter she received in the mail, and then watching the aforementioned insightful PBS Now television show, I have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that "the Son of the Pittsfield Devil himself" will be making a run for Congress based on many false pretenses, but also for the real reason of serving his Corporate Elite masters as another corrupted delegate on Capitol Hill. And, oh, by the way, if there is even one breath left in my lungs, I will be there to assist in the defeat Luciforo's Congressional run!
In my strongest of my Dissents,
Jonathan A. Melle
-----
PBS' NOW
Home Insurance 9-1-1
About the Show
In the fall of 2003, one of the largest recorded wildfires in California's history destroyed over 2,200 houses and killed fifteen people. Soon after, many who'd lost their homes had a rude awakening: their insurance did not nearly cover their losses as expected.
The insurance industry, which claims to cover "more property, more lives, more liability-related risks than any time at history," is busy fighting allegations that customers are receiving smaller payouts than what they were promised. This week, NOW collaborates with Bloomberg Markets magazine to investigate tactics some insurance companies may be using to reduce, avoid, or stall homeowners' claims in an effort to boost their own earnings.
"The insurance industry...is purposely misleading customers," California Lieutenant Governor and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi tells NOW. "The first commandment of the insurance industry is, 'Thou shalt pay as little, as late, as possible.'...You go to financial heaven if you can carry out that commandment."
The insurance industry is enjoying record-breaking profits, but who's paying the price?
-----
Home Insurers' Secret Tactics Cheat Fire Victims, Hike Profits
By David Dietz and Darrell Preston
August 03, 2007 (Bloomberg) -- Julie Tunnell remembers standing in her debris-strewn driveway when the tall man in blue jeans approached. Her northern San Diego tudor-style home had been incinerated a week earlier in the largest wildfire in California history. The blaze in October and November 2003 swept across an area 19 times the size of Manhattan, destroying 2,232 homes and killing 15 people.
Now came another blow. A representative of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest home insurer in the U.S., came to the charred remnants of Tunnell's home to tell her the company would pay just $220,000 of the estimated $306,000 cost of rebuilding the house.
``It was devastating; I stood there and cried,'' says Tunnell, 42, who teaches accounting at San Diego City College. ``I felt absolutely abandoned.''
Tunnell joined thousands of people in the U.S. who already knew a secret about the insurance industry: When there's a disaster, the companies homeowners count on to protect them from financial ruin routinely pay less than what policies promise.
Insurers often pay 30-60 percent of the cost of rebuilding a damaged home -- even when carriers assure homeowners they're fully covered, thousands of complaints with state insurance departments and civil court cases show.
Paying out less to victims of catastrophes has helped produce record profits. In the past 12 years, insurance company net income has soared -- even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
Highest-Ever Profits
Property-casualty insurers, which cover damage to homes and cars, reported their highest-ever profit of $73 billion last year, up 49 percent from $49 billion in 2005, according to Highline Data LLC, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based firm that compiles insurance industry data.
The 60 million U.S. homeowners who pay more than $50 billion a year in insurance premiums are often disappointed when they discover insurers won't pay the full cost of rebuilding their damaged or destroyed homes.
Property insurers systematically deny and reduce their policyholders' claims, according to court records in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Tennessee.
The insurance companies routinely refuse to pay market prices for homes and replacement contents, they use computer programs to cut payouts, they change policy coverage with no clear explanation, they ignore or alter engineering reports, and they sometimes ask their adjusters to lie to customers, court records and interviews with former employees and state regulators show.
`It's Despicable'
As Mississippi Republican U.S. Senator Trent Lott and thousands of other homeowners have found, insurers make low offers -- or refuse to pay at all -- and then dare people to fight back.
``It's despicable not to make good-faith offers to everybody,'' says Robert Hunter, who was Texas insurance commissioner from 1993 to 1995 and is now insurance director at the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America.
``Money managers have taken over this whole industry,'' Hunter says. ``Their eyes are not on people who are hurt but on the bottom line for the next quarter.''
The industry's drive for profit has overwhelmed its obligation to policyholders, says California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, a Democrat. As California's insurance commissioner from 2002 to 2006, Garamendi imposed $18.4 million in fines against carriers for mistreating customers.
``There's a fundamental economic conflict between the customer and the company,'' he says. ``That is, the company doesn't want to pay. The first commandment of insurance is, `Thou shalt pay as little and as late as possible.'''
Allstate Hires Consultant
Although the tension between insurers and their customers has long existed, it was in the 1990s that the industry began systematically looking for ways to increase profits by streamlining claims handling.
Hurricane Hugo was a major catalyst. The 1989 storm, which battered North and South Carolina, left the industry reeling from $4.2 billion in claims.
In September 1992, Allstate Corp., the second-largest U.S. home insurer, sought advice on improved efficiency from McKinsey & Co., a New York-based consulting firm that has advised many of the world's biggest corporations, according to records in at least six civil court cases.
State Farm, based in Bloomington, Illinois, and Los Angeles-based Farmers Group Inc., the third-largest home insurer in the U.S., also hired McKinsey as a consultant, court records show.
`Boxing Gloves'
McKinsey produced about 13,000 pages of documents, including PowerPoint slides, in the 1990s, for Northbrook, Illinois-based Allstate. The consulting firm developed methods for the company to become more profitable by paying out less in claims, according to videotaped evidence presented in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, Kentucky, in a civil case involving a 1997 car accident.
One slide McKinsey prepared for Allstate was entitled ``Good Hands or Boxing Gloves,'' the tape of the Kentucky court hearing shows. For 57 years, Allstate has advertised its employees as the ``Good Hands People,'' telling customers they will be well cared for in times of need.
The McKinsey slides had a new twist on that slogan.
When a policyholder files a claim, first make a low offer, McKinsey advised Allstate. If a client accepts the low amount, Allstate should treat the person with good hands, McKinsey said. If the customer protests or hires a lawyer, Allstate should fight back.
``If you don't take the pittance they offer, they're going to put on the boxing gloves and they're going to batter injured victims,'' plaintiffs attorney J. Dale Golden told Judge Thomas Clark at the May 12, 2005, hearing in which the lawyer introduced the McKinsey slides.
The Alligator
One McKinsey slide displayed at the Kentucky hearing featured an alligator with the caption ``Sit and Wait.'' The slide says Allstate can discourage claimants by delaying settlements and stalling court proceedings.
By postponing payments, insurance companies can hold money longer and make more on their investments -- and often wear down clients to the point of dropping a challenge. ``An alligator sits and waits,'' Golden told the judge, as they looked at the slide describing a reptile.
McKinsey's advice helped spark a turnaround in Allstate's finances. The company's profit rose 140 percent to $4.99 billion in 2006, up from $2.08 billion in 1996. Allstate lifted its income partly by paying less to its policyholders.
`Stars in Alignment'
Allstate spent 58 percent of its premium income in 2006 for claim payouts and the costs of the process compared with 79 percent in 1996, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The payout expense, called a loss ratio, changes each year based on events such as natural disasters; overall, it's been decreasing since Allstate hired McKinsey.
Investors have noticed. Allstate's stock price jumped fourfold to $60.95 on July 11 from its closing price on June 3, 1993, the day of its initial public offering. During the same period, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index rose threefold.
State Farm's profits have doubled since 1996 to $4.8 billion in 2006. Because State Farm is a mutual company, meaning it's owned by its policyholders, it doesn't have shares that trade publicly.
``This is about as good a stretch as I've seen,'' says Michael Chren, who manages $1.5 billion at Allegiant Asset Management Co. in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and has followed the property-casualty industry for 20 years.
The industry's performance during the past five years has been superb, even with payouts for Katrina, he says. ``All the stars have been in alignment,'' he says. ``There has been decent pricing of products and an extremely attractive and very low loss ratio.''
`More Audacious'
Reducing payouts is just one way the industry has improved profits.
Carriers have also raised premiums and withdrawn from storm-plagued areas such as the Gulf Coast of the U.S. and parts of Long Island, New York -- to lower costs and increase income, says Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco-based group that advises consumers on insurance claims.
``What this says is that the industry has been raking in spectacular profits while they're getting more and more audacious in their tactics,'' she says.
Allstate spokesman Michael Siemienas says the company won't comment on what role McKinsey played in lowering the insurer's loss ratio and boosting its profits. Allstate did change the way it handles homeowners' insurance claims, he says.
`Absolutely Sound'
``In the early 1990s, Allstate redesigned its claims practices to more efficiently and effectively handle claims and better serve our customers,'' he says.
``Allstate's goal remains the same: to investigate, evaluate and promptly resolve each claim based on its merits,'' Siemienas says. ``Allstate believes its claim processes support this goal and are absolutely sound.''
McKinsey doesn't discuss any of its work for clients, spokesman Mark Garrett says.
Jerry Choate, Allstate's chief executive officer from 1995 to 1998, said at a news conference in New York in 1997 that the company's new claims-handling process had reduced payments and increased profit, according to a report in a March 1997 edition of National Underwriter magazine.
Insurers can't make significantly more money just from cutting sales costs, he told reporters. ``The leverage is really on the claims side,'' Choate said. ``If you don't win there, I don't care what you do on the front end. You're not going to win.''
The more cash insurers can keep from premiums, the more they can invest. This pool of assets -- most of which the companies invest in government and corporate bonds -- is known as float.
`Better Than Free'
``Simply put, float is money we hold that is not ours but which we get to invest,'' billionaire Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., wrote in his annual letter to shareholders this year. ``When an insurer earns an underwriting profit, float is better than free,'' he wrote in 2006.
Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway generated 51 percent of its $11 billion profit in 2006 from insurance.
Claims payouts for the entire property-casualty industry have decreased in the past decade. In 2006, carriers paid out 55 percent of the $435.8 billion in premiums collected, according to the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group in New York.
That compares with a 64 percent payout ratio on $267.6 billion in premium revenue in 1996. As companies pay less to policyholders, their investment gains are growing, according to the trade group and research firm A.M. Best Co. in Oldwick, New Jersey.
`Purpose Evaporating'
The industry has increased profits by an annual average of 46 percent since 1994, Institute data show. In 2006, carriers invested $1.2 trillion and recorded a net gain of $52.3 billion, up from $713.5 billion invested for a gain of $39.1 billion in 1994.
Insurance companies are no longer following their mandate to take care of policyholders' money and then pay it out when needed, says Douglas Heller, executive director of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, California.
``The whole purpose of insurance is evaporating before our eyes as we continue to send checks to the companies,'' Heller says. ``Insurers are looking to shed their purpose as a risk bearer and become financial institutions.''
That kind of criticism is unwarranted, says Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute. He says about 1 percent of policyholders contest what they're offered.
`Justifiably Proud'
``The insurance industry can be justifiably proud of its performance,'' Hartwig says. ``It's in the insurance industry's best interests to settle claims as fairly and as rapidly as possible.''
Companies have sharpened the use of technology in the past 20 years to help tighten claims payouts.
Insurers following McKinsey's advice on claims processing have adopted computer programs with names such as Colossus and Xactimate.
Colossus, made by El Segundo, California-based Computer Sciences Corp., calculates the cost of treating people injured in auto accidents, including the degree of pain and suffering they'll endure and any permanent impairment they may have, according to Computer Sciences' Web site.
Xactimate, made by Xactware Solutions Inc. of Orem, Utah, is a program that estimates the cost of rebuilding a home.
`Designed to Underpay'
Insurers sometimes manipulate these programs to pay out as little as possible, lawsuits have asserted. ``Programs like Colossus are designed to systematically underpay policyholders without adequately examining the validity of each individual claim,'' former Texas insurance commissioner Hunter told the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on April 11.
He also criticized Xactimate. ``If you don't accept their offer, which is a low ball, you end up in court,'' Hunter said. ``And that was the recommendation of McKinsey.''
Computer Sciences and Xactware declined to comment.
Farmers Group, a subsidiary of Zurich Financial Services AG, agreed in 2005 to stop using Colossus to evaluate claims filed by policyholders who have accidents with uninsured or underinsured drivers.
The move was part of a $40 million settlement in a class- action lawsuit in Pottawatomie County District Court in Oklahoma in which the plaintiffs claimed the company had repeatedly and wrongly failed to pay enough for crash injuries.
`A Toothy Grin'
An internal e-mail introduced in the Farmers lawsuit shows the company had pressured its adjusters, whom it calls claims representatives, or CRs, to pay out smaller amounts -- and rewarded them when they did.
``As you know, we have been creeping up in settlements,'' David Harding, a Farmers claims manager, wrote in an e-mail to employees on Nov. 20, 2001. ``Our CRs must resist the temptation of paying more just to move this type file. Teach them to say, `Sorry, no more,' with a toothy grin and mean it.''
Harding praised a worker for making low settlements. ``It can be done as Darren consistently does,'' he wrote. ``If he keeps this up during 2002, we will pay him accordingly.''
Farmers said in court papers that it didn't seek to pay less than customers were due. ``The e-mail speaks for itself,'' Farmers wrote. ``Plaintiff's characterization of it is denied.''
`More Efficient'
Edward Rust Jr., CEO of State Farm, testified in a 2006 civil case that his company revamped its claims handling through a project called ACE, or Advanced Claims Excellence. McKinsey suggested the use of ACE, according to evidence presented in the district court of Grady County, Oklahoma.
``Technology has allowed us to really streamline our claim organization to be more efficient and responsive,'' Rust testified. He said the company wanted to cut expenses for claims.
In the Oklahoma case, Bridget and Donald Watkins, whose Grady County house was destroyed during a tornado in 1999, accused State Farm of misrepresenting the damage from the storm and won a $12.9 million judgment in May 2006. Watkins and State Farm agreed to an undisclosed settlement after the judgment.
Hunter, who also headed the federal flood insurance program under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, told Congress that Allstate, with McKinsey's guidance, gave the name Claim Core Process Redesign to its strategy to change payout practices.
As pervasive as computers have become in insurance, the key actor in settling claims is still the adjuster, the person who talks to policyholders and decides how much they should be paid.
`Told To Lie'
Allstate has asked adjusters to deceive customers, says Jo Ann Katzman, who worked as a claims adjuster for Allstate in 2002 and 2003. She says managers regularly came to her office in Farmington Hills, Michigan, to give pep talks on keeping claim payments down.
They awarded prizes such as portable refrigerators to adjusters who tried to deny claims by blaming fires on arson without justification, she says. ``We were told to lie by our supervisors,'' says Katzman, 49, who quit by taking a company buyout in 2003. ``It's tough to look at people and know you're lying.''
Katzman says an adjuster at Allstate, on orders from a supervisor, told an 89-year-old Detroit fire victim that Allstate wouldn't replace cabinets in her home even though the insurance policy said they were covered.
In another case, Katzman says Allstate wouldn't replace a fire-damaged refrigerator -- an appliance she says was covered. Katzman now runs Accurate Estimating Services, an independent adjusting company in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Allstate's Siemienas declined to comment on Katzman's statements.
Punitive Damages
Insurers sometimes order employees to offer replacement cost settlements that have no connection to actual prices of home contents, according to testimony in a civil trial.
A jury in November 2005 awarded Larry Stone and Linda Della Pelle $5.2 million in punitive damages and $616,000 to construct a new house after finding that Fidelity National Insurance Co. of Jacksonville, Florida, had underpaid the couple by $183,000 when it offered them $433,000 to rebuild their two-story Claremont, California, residence.
During the trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, Ricardo Echeverria, the couple's attorney, questioned Kenneth Drake, president of Canyon Country, California-based RJG Construction Inc., who had been hired by Fidelity's lawyers to evaluate damage estimates.
`Do You Think That's Fair?'
``Are you telling us that sometimes, because the insurance carriers dictate what amounts they are willing to allow for unit costs, estimators then have to comply with that?'' asked Echeverria, according to the court transcript.
``That's absolutely true,'' Drake said.
``Do you think that's fair?'' Echeverria asked.
``Fair or not, it's the name of our business,'' Drake said.
Drake declined to comment on his testimony. Fidelity is appealing the award.
A New Hampshire case involving a home destroyed in a fire exposed another insurance company tactic: changing a policy retroactively.
In April 2003, the Rockingham county attorney in Kingston, New Hampshire, found that a unit of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. had deleted the replacement cost portion of the homeowner's policy of Terry Bennett after his five-bedroom house burned to the ground in 1993.
`Wrong End'
Bennett, a physician, sued Twin City Fire Insurance Co., claiming his home and its contents -- including antiques and fine art -- were worth $20 million, not the $1.7 million the insurer paid him. After an 11-year battle, he settled with Hartford in 2004 for an undisclosed amount.
``Fighting an insurance company is like staring down the wrong end of a cannon,'' Bennett says.
An unprecedented number of people stared down that cannon after Hurricane Katrina. The August 2005 storm killed more than 1,600 people in Louisiana and Mississippi, left 500,000 people homeless and cost insurers $41.1 billion.
More than 1,000 homeowners sued their insurers in the wake of the storm -- the largest-ever number of insurance lawsuits stemming from a U.S. natural disaster.
For insurers, the multibillion-dollar question regarding Katrina was how much of the destruction was caused by wind and how much by water. Property insurance policies don't cover damage caused by flooding; homeowners have to purchase separate insurance administered by the U.S. government.
Altering Reports
The wind/water issue has spurred allegations that insurers manipulated the findings of adjusters and engineers.
Ken Overstreet, an engineer based in Diamondhead, Mississippi, who examined destroyed Gulf Coast residences, says someone altered his findings on the cause of the damage to at least four homes.
``We were working for insurance companies, and they wanted certain results,'' says Overstreet, who has been a licensed civil engineer since 1981. ``They wanted to get a desired outcome, and that's what they did.''
Overstreet, who was working for Houston-based Rimkus Consulting Group Inc., prepared a report on the Gulfport, Mississippi, home of Hubert and Joyce Smith for Meritplan Insurance Co. The engineer found that both wind and water had damaged the house.
``The winds out of the east would have racked the entire structure to the west and simply lifted the footings up,'' he wrote.
Rejected
Meritplan declined to pay anything to the Smiths, telling them that all of the damage was caused by water. The company sent the Smiths what it said was Overstreet's engineering report.
``Due to the extent of the structural damage to the residence, the storm surge accounted for the damage,'' the report they got said.
The Smiths called Overstreet and asked him to look at what Meritplan had sent them. Overstreet says he looked at both reports side by side and then told the couple that someone had changed his conclusion after his inspection.
``If they defrauded me, how many more did they defraud?'' asks Hubert Smith, 88, a retired chiropractor. ``There's a lot of crap going on.''
Six lawsuits against Rimkus allege the company altered engineering reports. ``Those allegations are absolutely false,'' says Arch Currid, a Rimkus spokesman. ``There's no fact to those claims. We're going to vigorously defend ourselves in court, and we're confident we will prevail.''
Lawsuit Settled
Ed Essa, a spokesman for Calabasas, California-based Countrywide Financial Corp., the parent of Meritplan, says the company confidentially settled a lawsuit with the Smiths in March.
Another engineer involved in Katrina, Bob Kochan, CEO of Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp., says State Farm asked him to redo his reports because the insurer disagreed with the engineers' conclusions. Kochan sent an Oct. 17, 2005, e-mail to his staff saying State Farm executive Alexis ``Lecky'' King asked for the changes.
``Lecky told me that she is experiencing this same concern with other engineering companies,'' Kochan wrote. ``In her words, `They are all too emotionally involved and working too hard to find justifications to call it wind damage.'''
Kochan says he complied so State Farm didn't cut its contract with his company. ``They didn't like our conclusions,'' he says. ``We agreed to re-evaluate each of our assignments.''
`Serious Concern'
Randy Down, an engineer at Raleigh, North Carolina-based Forensic, wrote this Oct. 18, 2005, e-mail response to Kochan: ``I have a serious concern about the ethics of this whole matter. I really question the ethics of someone who wants to fire us simply because our conclusions don't match theirs.''
The e-mails were made public in a civil case against State Farm in Jackson, Mississippi.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple says Kochan's e-mail comments are out of context. He says sometimes information in engineering reports doesn't support the conclusions.
One State Farm policyholder in Mississippi was Senator Lott, who lost his home in Katrina. He sued State Farm for fraud in U.S. District Court in Jackson, after the insurer ruled that his home had been damaged by water and refused to pay him anything.
``It's long overdue for this industry to be held accountable'' Lott, 65, says. Lott and State Farm agreed to a confidential settlement in April.
Trent Lott's Bill
Lott has introduced legislation to have insurers regulated by the federal government. That would supplant a patchwork system of regulation by states. Insurance has no body analogous to the SEC, which can refer cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
That doesn't happen with insurers. The most that state insurance departments typically do is impose civil fines when companies mistreat customers. Such sanctions are weak and infrequent, says Hunter, the former Texas insurance commissioner.
Before Katrina, no state or federal prosecutor had ever investigated a nationally known property-casualty company for criminal mistreatment of policyholders. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood says a federal grand jury is probing insurance company claims handling after the hurricane.
There was no criminal investigation after State Farm offered just 15 percent of replacement costs to Michele and Tim Ray, whose house was wrecked by a tornado in April 2006. A contractor estimated the cost to rebuild the Hendersonville, Tennessee, home at $254,000.
Living Amid Ruins
State Farm made three inspections of the property, Ray says, and sent the Rays a check for $36,000, which the couple returned. A year after the twister, the couple remained in the damaged home, with their tattered roof covered by tarpaulins.
In April, after Bloomberg News submitted questions to State Farm about the Ray case, the company inspected the house again. This time, it gave the Rays $302,000.
``We decided to call it a total loss and agreed to pay the policy limits after deciding the damage was caused by the storm,'' State Farm spokesman Shawn Johnson says.
State Farm won't discuss what role McKinsey played in helping the insurer shape its approach toward customers. Similarly, no official at any insurer that hired McKinsey is willing to talk about the consulting firm.
`Doing What is Right'
Privately held McKinsey, which has 14,000 employees in 40 countries, has worked for many of the largest companies in the world, according to its Web site. ``We take pride in doing what is right rather than what is right for the profitability of our firm,'' Managing Director Ian Davis says in a quote posted on the site.
McKinsey pioneered the overhaul of the property-casualty industry at Allstate. The company hired McKinsey in 1992 after the insurer was spun off from what's now Sears Holdings Corp. of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, says David Berardinelli, a Santa Fe, New Mexico, lawyer who won access to view the McKinsey documents for a limited time during a lawsuit involving an auto accident.
McKinsey advised the insurer to pay claims quickly at low amounts while delaying payments for as long as possible for those who wanted large settlements, Berardinelli says. ``They're capitalizing on the vulnerability of people'' he says.
Berardinelli says McKinsey suggested that Allstate hold so- called town hall meetings with claims adjusters to urge them to pay less to customers.
Shannon Kmatz, a former Allstate claims adjuster, says she attended some of those sessions. She says managers told employees to keep claim payouts as low as possible.
Looking at Stock Price
``The leaders of those town hall meetings were always concerned that we were doing our part to help the stock price by keeping claims down,'' says Kmatz, 34, who worked for Allstate for three years in New Mexico in the late 1990s and is now a police officer. ``It was obvious from the get-go that all they were concerned about was the bottom line.''
Just once, at the May 2005 hearing in Lexington, Kentucky, the PowerPoint slides McKinsey prepared for Allstate were made public. William Hager and his wife, Geneva, who suffered neck and back injuries after the family's car was rear-ended in a 1997 accident in Lexington, sued the insurer, claiming the company failed to cover her medical expenses.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in October.
One McKinsey slide prepared for Allstate was called ``Zero- Sum Economic Game,'' a videotape of the court hearing shows. The slide explains that there are winners and losers, and the insurance company can win by paying out small amounts.
`Finite Pool of Money'
``There is a finite pool of money,'' Golden, the plaintiffs attorney, told the judge at the hearing. ``Either it goes to the injured victim or it goes to Allstate's pocket as surplus.''
Allstate's attorney at the hearing, Mindy Barfield of Lexington, didn't say anything about the McKinsey slides. She didn't return phone calls seeking her comments.
Former federal flood insurance commissioner Hunter says the McKinsey approach exploits policyholders.
``McKinsey presented it as a zero-sum game in which the winners would be Allstate and the losers would be the claimants,'' Hunter says. ``I don't think a claims system should be viewed in that light. It's against any principles on how you should settle insurance claims. They should be settled on their merits.''
Allstate convinced the judge to seal the McKinsey slides before and after the Lexington hearing. The insurer has resisted attempts to make the consulting firm's work public in courts across the U.S., arguing it contains trade secrets.
In 2004, the company was sanctioned by the Bartholomew Circuit Court in Indiana and fined $10,000 for refusing to turn over the records to attorney Richard Enyon, representing an auto accident victim. Allstate held on to the documents and appealed the punishment. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanction.
`Go To Court'
Allstate then appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which hasn't yet made a decision.
Lawsuits in California, Florida and Texas have asserted that McKinsey's work for Allstate helped the insurer cheat claimants. Records show that through the company's Claim Core Process Redesign project, Allstate encouraged policyholders to accept small settlements on the spot.
The redesign also became a blueprint for fighting more claims in court as Allstate increased its legal staff, according to a 1997 company newsletter obtained by David Poore, a Petaluma, California, attorney who has represented homeowners in lawsuits against carriers.
``The bottom line is that Allstate is trying more cases than ever before,'' the newsletter said. ``If the offer is not accepted, Allstate will go to court, if necessary, to prove the evaluation process is sound.''
San Diego Fire
McKinsey-style tactics have spread to insurers large and small, as homeowners discovered after three wildfires ravaged Southern California in 2003, including the one that hit northern San Diego.
While Katrina struck thousands of low-income families in New Orleans, the San Diego fire affected mostly affluent homeowners, who fared no better with their insurance companies.
The fire obliterated large sections of Scripps Ranch, a community of 30,000 that sits atop a sagebrush and eucalyptus mesa, where homes can cost more than $1 million.
After flames swept through the area on winds of up to 50 miles per hour, residents say they expected their insurance companies to live up to coverage promises and pay the full cost to rebuild.
The Southern California fires led to 676 formal complaints to the state saying insurers offered payouts that fell far short of actual costs and delayed on paying claims.
No Inkling
One of the Scripps Ranch houses that went up in flames, a four-bedroom, gray-stucco home on a sloping cul-de-sac, belonged to J.P. Lapeyre, a division director at JDS Uniphase Corp., a Milpitas, California, maker of telecommunications equipment.
Lapeyre, 41, who is married and has two children, says he had no inkling as he viewed the remains of his house that his insurance would leave him $280,000 short of what he would need to rebuild.
Representatives of Pacific Specialty Insurance Co. of Menlo Park, California, told him the most the firm would pay out was $168,075, not even half of the estimated reconstruction cost of $448,000.
The Pacific Specialty representative told Lapeyre in November 2003 that the insurer would pay $75 a square foot (0.09 square meter) to rebuild his 2,241-square-foot house. ``What frustration,'' Lapeyre says. ``I had to try to prove to them that it would cost $200 a square foot.''
That figure came separately from two builders, Norton Construction and TLC Contractors, both of San Diego.
Lapeyre's Suit
In February 2005, Lapeyre filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court against his insurer and the independent broker who sold him the policy, alleging negligence, breach of contract and fraud for leading him to believe that he was properly covered.
After a fight of 19 months, Lapeyre dropped the suit when Pacific Specialty told a mediator assigned to the case it wouldn't raise its offer, he says. ``We decided it was time to get on with our lives and move forward,'' says Lapeyre, who borrowed money to build a new house.
Karen and Bill Reimus, both lawyers, fought their carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., when it told them it wouldn't pay the couple enough to rebuild their burned Scripps Ranch house.
Karen, 40, says an agent for Boston-based Liberty Mutual assured her and her husband when they bought their house four months before the 2003 fire that their insurance would replace the home if it were destroyed.
`A Low Ball'
In a December 2003 letter, two months after the fire, Liberty Mutual offered to pay $40,000 less than the limit of the couple's policy, Karen says. In early 2004, San Diego-based Gafcon Construction Consultants determined the cost to rebuild was well above the limits of the couple's policy.
The Reimuses began a phone and letter campaign to convince the company its offer was too low, Karen says. ``It has now been almost seven months since the loss and we are still not agreed as to the numbers,'' Karen wrote in a May 13, 2004, letter to Liberty Mutual.
Two weeks later, Liberty Mutual agreed to raise the couple's limits by $100,000, Karen says. ``This is clear evidence that the original estimate was a low ball,'' she says.
Liberty Mutual spokesman Glenn Greenberg says the company won't discuss the case because its dealings with policyholders are private.
``The system is set up to take advantage of people when they're at their weakest,'' Karen says. ``We went to one of the most-expensive companies in the country because we wanted to be ready for a rainy day. We asked for coverage that would replace the house. We thought replacement meant replacement.''
Allstate Suit
Scripps Ranch couple Leslie Mukau and Robin Seaberg sued Allstate for alleged fraud and negligence for failing to pay the $900,000 that contractors estimate it would cost to replace their two-story home.
Allstate offered the Seabergs $311,000, according to the 2004 San Diego County Superior Court suit. Allstate says in court papers the couple hasn't shown the company was negligent and asked for dismissal of the suit, which is pending.
The California Department of Insurance examined the practices of Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., AMCO Insurance Co. and Allstate in connection with the California fires.
It fined Allied and AMCO, both based in Des Moines, Iowa, a total of $20,000 for misleading nine policyholders into believing they were insured for full value. The regulators cited Allstate for six rule violations, including that it ignored complaints that it underinsured homeowners.
Fines `Too Small'
The state didn't fine Allstate, which told the department it had done nothing wrong.
``Fines by state regulatory agencies have been far too small and infrequent to deter unfair business practices,'' United Policyholders' Bach says. ``It's clear that cheating by insurers is a big, profitable business and regulators can't muster the will or political strength to stop them.''
Most homeowners take what insurers offer because they don't realize they're being deceived or conclude that fighting is too costly and difficult, Bach says.
``Virtually everyone who settles for what the insurer offers is taking less than they're owed,'' she says.
Homeowners across the U.S. have found themselves in the same situation. Kevin Hazlett, a lawyer, sued Farmers Group after an April 2006 tornado struck his home in O'Fallon, Illinois.
`Thin Air'
Farmers had offered to pay him $470,000 to rebuild the house. Royal Construction Inc., based in Collinsville, Illinois, estimated the cost at $1.1 million. Hazlett, 52, accepted a settlement for an undisclosed amount.
Hazlett says Illinois Farmers, a subsidiary of Farmers, used the Xactimate software program to first determine what it would pay out. ``They're just pulling numbers out of thin air,'' he says. ``There's no rhyme or reason.'' Farmers spokesman Jerry Davies didn't respond to requests for an interview.
Bo Chessor, owner of Royal Construction, says he sees insurers refusing to pay coverage limits all the time. ``Most people just roll over and take it because they don't have the money to fight it,'' Chessor says. ``What the insurance companies are doing is purely robbery.''
It may be robbery, but it's rarely a crime. State insurance departments don't prosecute insurance companies, and the federal government has no oversight. The insurance industry wants to keep it that way.
Insurance Lobbying
To make their voice heard on federal regulation and other government decisions, insurers spent $98 million on lobbying in Washington in 2006, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a unit of Congressional Quarterly. That's the second-largest amount spent on lobbying by any group, behind $114.4 million by pharmaceutical companies.
Property-casualty companies do want something from the government: bailouts. Insurers beseech states and the federal government to foot more of the bill for rebuilding private homes after natural disasters.
Florida has a catastrophe fund that insures some homes to reduce payouts by carriers. The fund paid out about $8.45 billion for storm damage in 2004 and 2005, according to its annual report. The federal flood insurance program covers $800 billion of property nationally, which helped the industry increase profits by 25 percent in 2005, the year of Katrina.
Disaster Just the Beginning
Homeowners whose properties have been destroyed by catastrophes contend with low payouts, higher premiums, software programs that underestimate rebuilding costs and sudden changes in policy values -- all of which have been calculated methods for insurers to increase profits.
Tunnell, the San Diego accounting teacher whose home burned to the ground, says she thought State Farm had adequately insured her family when they bought their three-bedroom house in 1992. She says the policy, destroyed in the fire, provided for ``full replacement coverage.''
It guaranteed to rebuild the house, no matter the cost, she says. The company offered to pay $220,000 -- which was $86,000 less than a $306,000 figure her family got from State Farm's own estimator, Hersum Construction Inc. of San Diego, for rebuilding the 1,700-square-foot house.
State Farm spokesman Supple says the company sent letters in 1997 to the Tunnells and other policyholders saying that it would no longer offer full replacement coverage. ``Policyholders, by regulatory order, were sent prominent notices of the coverage change at that time,'' he says.
`This is Unthinkable'
Tunnell says she doesn't recall being notified. She says her family debated hiring a lawyer and suing, and eventually decided the battle would be too stressful. The Tunnells took the $220,000 and borrowed money to build a new house.
``Why is this happening to people over and over again?'' Tunnell asks. ``State Farm keeps underinsuring people, and they get away with it. This is unthinkable.''
As long as insurers make the rules and control the game, Tunnell and homeowners across the U.S. won't know whether their homes are fully insured, no matter what their policies say.
To contact the reporters on this story: David Dietz in San Francisco at ddietz1 at bloomberg dot net ; Darrell Preston in Dallas at dpreston at bloomberg dot net .
Last Updated: August 3, 2007 00:12 EDT
-----
Homeowners Insurance
In order to buy a house or maintain a mortgage, homeowners insurance is required. But the practices of insurance companies are making this product that we buy to satisfy mortgage companies increasingly irrelevant to us as customers and homeowners.
Disaster: Insurance Claims Checklist
California law requires insurance companies to pay claims promptly and for the full amount covered by the policy. However, as most consumers know, getting an insurance company to pay your claim can be a difficult and stressful experience. Review this checklist, which offers suggestions on how you can protect your rights if a fire, earthquake or other natural disaster causes you a loss. California residents should visit the Cal. Earthquake Authority to learn more about earthquake insurance options available.
Your Credit History Should Not Increase Your Insurance Premium
Everybody knows that their credit history will impact their ability to get loans and the interest rate they'll be charged. There is some logical relationship: a bank will risk loaning a customer money as long as the consumer has a history of making good on previous loans. But around the country, people are asking: What does paying off my Visa card have to do with whether or not a windstorm blows shingles off my roof?
Read more about why credit scoring should not be allowed to determine how much a customer pays for homeowners insurance.
Use It and Lose It
At FTCR we have heard a lot of complaints about an insurance company practice known as "Use It and Lose It," in which insurers will refuse to renew customers' policies simply because they have filed claims under their policy. Read about the type of reforms we are fighting for to stop this unfair practice.
consumerwatchdog dot org / insurance / homeowner
-----
Good for BMC, not for county
Letters
Monday, August 27, 2007
Once again Berkshire Medical Center has shown its power. The radiology group, whose concerns for good patient care were blocked by BMC, has now been taken over.
The group provided truly positive experiences for patients: both on North Street and the New Lebanon sites. The orthopedic ambulatory surgical center proposed for Lenox would have been another excellent option for patients.
Monopolizing health care in Berkshire County may be good business. But is it good health care to take choices from our citizens? I think not.
MARION E. WHITMAN
Great Barrington
9/10/2007
Re: What do John Olver and Jon Melle have in common?
Dear Berkshire Bloggers, News Media, Politicians & the People:
The answer to the above question is...ANDREA F. NUCIFORO, Junior, (aka Luciforo)!
To explain, John Olver is the long-standing sitting United States Representative for most of Western Massachusetts. Unlike the incumbent Congressman from Amherst, Massachusetts(John Olver), Nuciforo, of Pittsfield/Boston, is a minion of the "John Forbes Kerry, Martin Meehan, Barney Frank...special interest political machine" ran by the large financial institutions in and around Boston. The Corporate Elite in Boston wants Nuciforo elected to Congress, thereby ousting Olver, so that he will do their bidding on Capitol Hill.
To illustrate, when John Forbes Kerry ran for the presidency several years ago (in 2004), the Corporate Elite in Boston put on a fundraiser for the wealthy candidate in Nantucket (Spring, 2004). The event, which was hosted by John Kerry, was also co-hosted by Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr., who wore a matching tuxedo as he stood next to the junior Massachusetts Senator greeting the wealthy corporate executives and lobbyist who raised more campaign money for Kerry than the incumbent Bush was able to raise from his Corporate Elite donors in 2004.
To further illustrate, go to the following web-site:
bermananddowell dot com / jsp2196567 dot jsp
There you will find that Nuciforo really only serves the Corporate Elite in Boston as a private Corporate Attorney for Boston's big banks and insurance companies.
Furthermore, please review the Boston Globe's 1/16/2007 news article, pasted below, which explains that:
$$$$$$$$$$$$
"Nuciforo , the former Senate chairman of the Financial Services Committee...collected $11,000 in political donations from Commerce executives in [2006],...Nuciforo has focused his private law practice on insurance issues during the time he chaired the committee. He is listed as "of counsel" to Berman & Dowell, a Boston law firm that cites insurance defense as one of its three practice groups. He joined the firm the year he became committee chairman. Nuciforo's practice area is listed "insurance coverage" and "insurance defense , " according to the firm's website. That legal work entails defense work for insurance companies against claimants. ...Nuciforo, who made $72,000 a year as a state senator, listed receiving $15,000 in income from the law firm in 2005, according to his latest financial statements filed with the State Ethics Committee. ...
$$$$$$$$$$$$
In 2008, Nuciforo will be able to run for U.S. Congress against John Olver and keep his "sinecure" in Pittsfield where he makes over $80,000 per year as the Central Berkshire Registrar of Deeds with a term of being up for "election" every 6 years. Nuciforo was "elected" to this "sinecure" in 2006 and he will not be up for "election" again until 2012. That gives Nuciforo the best of all Worlds! On the one hand, Nuciforo will raise more campaign money than John Olver because of his affiliations with the Corporate Elite in Boston, and on the other hand, he will have the security of his "sinecure" in Pittsfield. The only advantage that John Olver has against Nuciforo will be his long-standing incumbency. BUT, John Olver has one more ace up his sleave, although he may not know it, and that will be the assistance of Jonathan Melle (me) in defeating Nuciforo in his run for Congress by exposing the FRAUD Nuciforo really is!
NOW, here is the difficult part. Jonathan Melle (me) comes from a "have-not" background. My parents rely on public pensions for their financial security. Around this time in (the Autumn) 1997, my dad was quoted in The North Adams Transcript as criticizing the commonwealth for not paying the full amount to the Berkshire County Government for the Courthouse rent. By the Spring of 1998, Nuciforo filed a Massachusetts State Ethics Commission report against my Dad to get him fired from his then state job as a probation officer and force his resignation from my dad's elected position as a Berkshire County Commissioner. Please note that during the same time period in the Spring of 1998, Nuciforo set up secretive plans with the Pittsfield Police Department to have me arrested because Nuciforo alleged that I was a threat to him after Nuciforo threatened me twice the year prior. Please note that if Nuciforo got his way, my dad would have lost both of his jobs and his son (me) would have gone to jail. Had Nuciforo gotten my dad is trouble, my dad would not be collecting a state pension today. My family would be very poor instead of middle class.
What is the point? By Cliff Nilan calling my dad, Denis Guyer sending my mom anonymous letters with my emails enclosed, and the like, the point is that if I help John Olver next year win re-election by providing the Congressman with documents of Nuciforo's deficient and corrupt public record, the Pittsfield Political Machine will strike at my family again -- 10 years later. The Pols will try to take away one or both of my parent's public pensions to spite me for my long-term and continued stand against Nuciforo. My parents will blame me instead of the Pols for their plight, and dirty politics will win the day.
Because the absurdly trivial Pittsfield Political Machine has their targets on Congressman John Olver to put Nuciforo in political office, my family will be a casualty of war. I will be made to be the bad guy, and Nuciforo will shine like a statue and smell like a rose.
What John Olver and Jon Melle have in common is Nuciforo's dirty politics. I hope that John Olver realizes what is coming and will protect more than his own interests--i.e., guard at least my parents in their coming times of hardships. I don't care what happens to me in all of this. Bash me around, spit on my face, slander my name all over the place. I will still be there, standing tall, helping my parents and John Olver during their difficult times of need. I have been through Nuciforo's dirty politics ten years ago, and I am ready and willing to face him in Round #2!
In closing and on a human level, my mom is suffering as a cancer survivor. I know that politics is usually banal: Abortion, Healthcare Coverage, Homelessness, etc. BUT, in this case, have a heart for my mother's illness. The odds are against her. She may not survive. Do what you want to me, but please don't harass my mother anymore. If you "Pittsfield Good Old Boys" want to play hardball with me, I will beat you at your pathetic game each and every time around. If you want to play hardball with my mother while she is vulnerable and suffering, then you will meet the strongest of my continual dissents. You don't like me, and I don't like you, and that is the banal reality, but please, please, please have a heart and stop targetting my mother.
I WILL ALWAYS SPEAK MY GOOD CONSCIENCE FOR AS LONG AS I LIVE!
In Dissent,
Jonathan A. Melle
--
THE BOSTON GLOBE
NEWS ARTICLE
Ex-senator moving on insurance position
Six say Nuciforo sought advice
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
January 16, 2007
Former state senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who was sworn in two weeks ago as Berkshire County register of deeds, is already moving on to his next job search: a bid to become Governor Deval Patrick's commissioner of insurance.
Nuciforo, who has been the Senate chairman of the committee that oversees the state's heavily regulated insurance industry, has told his former colleagues and politically connected figures on Beacon Hill that he wants the insurance post, which would pay about $120,000 a year. The move would require him to resign as register, which pays him about $80,000 a year but also permits him to practice law.
Nuciforo, a Pittsfield Democrat, did not return calls over the last several days seeking comment. Nuciforo's former Senate aide, Patrick J. Quirk, said the senator would have no comment other than he would be "flattered" to be considered for a position in the Patrick administration.
But six of his former Senate and political colleagues on Beacon Hill have told the Globe that he has sought their advice and help in seeking the insurance post.
It is not clear what chance Nuciforo has in landing the position in the Patrick administration. A senior adviser to the governor said the former state senator probably would not get the position, although he may be granted an interview. Patrick's press secretary, Kyle Sullivan, said the administration does not comment on "pending personnel matters."
Nuciforo's campaign to become insurance commissioner has confounded many of his former colleagues in the State House and stirred the political world in Pittsfield, where Nuciforo has been a popular state senator for 10 years.
Last March, he shocked local political observers when he announced he would not seek reelection and instead run for the register of deeds position that was being vacated.
Because he was a popular senator with a bulging campaign account, his presence in the campaign for register persuaded two other contestants, including a former Pittsfield mayor who once served as his aide, to drop out of the race. He ran unopposed in the primary and general election, taking over what is considered a political sinecure.
Nuciforo, a 10-year incumbent whose final Senate term ended Jan. 2, was deeply involved in several controversial auto insurance reform proposals designed to change the way auto insurance is regulated in Massachusetts, including plans by several major firms and former governor Mitt Romney that sought to create a more competitive market.
Nuciforo, the former Senate chairman of the Financial Services Committee, came out strongly against House legislation proposed last June that would have phased out state-set rates and phase in competitive rate setting over five years. He predicted that if it passed the House, the bill would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, contending it was "consumer-unfriendly." He and other critics said it would sharply increase premiums for drivers in urban areas.
Commerce Insurance Co., the state's largest auto insurer, has lobbied heavily against many of the proposals on Beacon Hill, contending that proposals to overhaul the system would raise rates for drivers in urban areas. Those opponents say the legislation would reduce subsidies that currently flow from suburban and rural drivers to urban motorists.
Nuciforo collected $11,000 in political donations from Commerce executives in the last year. As his committee considered the bill last year, he also collected donations from insurance company executives who wanted more autonomy in setting rates. Massachusetts is the only state in which regulators set auto insurance rates.
Patrick has yet to clearly outline his views on insurance reform, although during the campaign last year, he said he would like to see more competition.
Nuciforo has focused his private law practice on insurance issues during the time he chaired the committee. He is listed as "of counsel" to Berman & Dowell, a Boston law firm that cites insurance defense as one of its three practice groups. He joined the firm the year he became committee chairman. Nuciforo's practice area is listed "insurance coverage" and "insurance defense , " according to the firm's website. That legal work entails defense work for insurance companies against claimants.
According to the firm's promotional material, Joseph S. Berman, a partner, "leads the insurance defense group which provides clients with aggressive and cost-effective representation in a broad range of insurance matters, including insurance defense, coverage, and the defense of unfair insurance practices lawsuits."
Berman said in an interview several months ago that Nuciforo does not refer insurance defense work to him or others in the firm.
Nuciforo, who made $72,000 a year as a state senator, listed receiving $15,000 in income from the law firm in 2005, according to his latest financial statements filed with the State Ethics Committee.
Last week, Patrick fired Julianne M. Bowler, Romney's insurance commissioner, who was implementing an assigned risk plan, in which as many as 1 million of the state's drivers would be randomly assigned to carriers based on market share. The plan marked a radical change from current policy.
A farewell from Berk. Radiological
Letters
09/18/2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
We, the employees of Berkshire Radiological Associates, would like to thank all the devoted patients, doctors and their staff who have supported us over the past 4 1/2 years. Since the announcement of our closing, your calls, letters and cards have been overwhelming.
We have enjoyed being here for you and have made many friends along the way. We will miss each and every one of you. We will especially miss your kindness, humor and occasional goodies. We will take with us many fond memories and hopes that our paths will cross again. Again, thanks to you all. Most importantly, we wish you good health.
LISA AVERY
CHRISTINE BARNABY
Pittsfield
The letter was also signed by Mary Campoli, Bernard Godfrey, Lisa Harrison, Jodi O'Neill, Becky Strout, Jack Troop, Lynn Wellington, Sue White and Missy Zink.
AG: auto insurance rules wouldn't adequately protect consumers
By Mark Jewell, AP Business Writer | September 20, 2007
BOSTON --Attorney General Martha Coakley said Thursday that the state's insurance commissioner hasn't gone far enough to protect consumers in proposing rules to open Massachusetts' regulated auto insurance market.
Coakley recommended changes she said are needed before Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes drafts a final version of the rules next month.
Coakley wants stronger language banning auto insurers' use of consumers' credit scores in setting individual rates and deciding whom to cover.
Coakley also said the proposed regulations would unfairly undercut her office's ability to review companies' rate filings, and wouldn't give consumers enough tools to shop for the best deal.
The attorney general had previously said the industry might not be ready for an open market, and suggested the current system be kept in place for at least another year.
The market transition is expected to begin next April and be completed by March 31, 2009 -- a period when the credit scoring issue would be studied under the proposal from Burnes, a Superior Court justice appointed to the insurance post in February by Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick.
On Thursday, three weeks after Burnes issued her proposed regulations, Coakley, also a Democrat, offered recommendations at a public hearing and said a ban is needed on the use of credit scores.
Burnes' proposed regulations "are inconsistent with one of the commissioner's four guiding principles: fairness to all drivers through the prohibition of the use of socio-economic factors," Coakley said in prepared testimony presented at the hearing by Glenn Kaplan, head of the insurance division in Coakley's office.
A spokeswoman for Burnes did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
Burnes proposed banning insurers from using credit information for setting premiums during the one-year market transition, but would allow use of such data during that period in deciding whether to cover an individual.
Meanwhile, Burnes called for study of the credit scoring issue, saying the implications spread beyond the auto insurance market to other lines of insurance.
Under the shift to so-called managed competition, companies would file their own rates with regulators, who would review them.
Nineteen insurers currently write auto insurance policies in Massachusetts -- far fewer than in most states, and nearly half the number that participated in 1990. Massachusetts in the only state where state regulators, not the market, set car insurance rates.
Burnes' proposal would ban factors in rate-setting including income, marital status, education, occupation and homeownership. Insurers would be limited to considering a motorist's experience and driving record as primary factors in setting rates.
Insurance companies have welcomed the shift toward a more open market, but some have opposed strict limits on which socio-economic factors they can consider. They argue that such factors can offer a sound basis for determining how likely a driver is to file an accident claim.
--
FindLaw > Lawyer Directory > Lawyer
Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr.
Firm: Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.
Address: PO Box 1205
65 Bartlett Ave
Pittsfield, MA 01202-1205
Phone: (413) 499-2244
Fax: (413) 499-7911
West Practice Categories:
Estate Planning
--
AND
--
Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.
Lawyer in Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
(Suffolk Co.)
--
9/22/2007
Dear Mary Carey!
You are the best journalist ever! Thank you for posting some of my emails on your web blogs. Your voice sings for the voiceless! You have real courage and are a real journalist for the people, not just the elite.
ongeicocaveman dot blogspot dot com
/
2007 / 09 / classic-jonathan-melle dot html
Just so that all of my powerful and elite political enemies in Massachusetts will know, I will be helping my mom again next month by accompanying her to Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. I have nothing but resentment for my political enemies in Massachusetts for targetting my vulnerable mother by sending her anonymous letters about my political writings (especially my essays against Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr. and/or Denis E. Guyer) while her health is ill. Nuciforo ("Luciforo") got what he deserved by Mary Carey's blog-posting of my recent letter against him and those, including the Corporate Elite in Boston/John Forbes Kerry, and the Pittsfield Political Machine, who support his future run against John Olver for U.S. Congress!
I have the best advantage over all of you because Mary Carey's voice for the voiceless will keep all of you state and local pols, et al, in check! Anything you try to do to me or my family, Mary Carey will publish on the news wires and blogs! I know you don't want that to happen, especially John Forbes Kerry and his wealthy group of Corporate Elite country club buddies!
Thank you, Mary Carey! I will never forget you and your decency in the face of Pittsfield/Boston's "neo-McCarthyism." You are true-blue American!
I guess I don't really need John Olver's help after-all because Mary Carey will help me regardless. I still hope that John Olver will protect my parents next year when his seat is targetted by LUCIFORO! Like I said before, I don't care what happens to me. I do, however, care about the corrupt political persecution of my parents, especially my mother, who is struggling with cancer!
The hidden point that Mary Carey is making by being a voice for the voiceless is that I am a good man, and it is hard to bring a good man down! I believe Mary Carey is a good person, too! She is my favorite journalist of all time. Mary Carey is what journalism is all about!
Yours Very Truly,
Jonathan A. Melle
This link used to take you to Nuciforo's Corporate Boston Law Firm web-page:
http://www.bermananddowell.com/jsp2196567.jsp
But now you will NO LONGER find that Nuciforo serves the Corporate Elite for a Private Boston Law Firm named "Berman & Dowell" as a private Corporate Attorney for Boston's big banks and insurance companies.
Now, the link directs you to another web-site:
http://www.lawyers.com/
In the interim, the web-page reads:
WE ARE SORRY...
The page you have requested cannot be found.
Your browser should refresh to http://www.lawyers.com in 10 seconds. If this doesn't occur, click here.
News Article:
New auto rates itemized
By Jack Dew, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Drivers gunning their engines for auto insurance savings might want to shift into park.
The rates proposed by the state's 19 auto insurance companies won't take effect until April — anyone renewing a plan between now and then will do so under the old system — and some drivers could see their premiums increase by up to 10 percent, leading critics of competitive rate setting to say that their fears are coming true.
The average statewide plan will decrease by 7.7 percent, but good drivers could see reductions of as much as 25 or even 35 percent, with some companies offering aggressive discounts to capture the lowest-risk customers. Drivers with bad records, on the other hand, could see premiums rise by up to 9.9 percent.
Massachusetts is allowing auto insurers to set their own rates for the first time since the 1970s, ending years of state-set premiums. Under the rules set by Gov. Deval L. Patrick's administration, there are some restrictions: No driver can see his or her premiums increase by more than 10 percent, and companies are forbidden to use a driver's credit score to assess risk.
State Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes released four sample policies yesterday that showed the maximum possible discount for four customers — a single driver with a good record, a family of three with one speeding ticket and so forth. All could find plans offering double-digit discounts, some as high as 36 percent over their current bills.
Although Burnes pointed to those rates as proof that good drivers from all areas will benefit under competition, the samples she released included only perfect or near-perfect drivers; she did not release samples that showed increasing rates for bad drivers.
The plans showed a broad range of potential prices: The same driver could be offered a 6 percent increase from one company and a 25 percent decrease from another. Burnes said drivers will have to keep their eyes open to make sure they get the best deal.
"It will be worth people's while to look around for the good deals," Burnes said. "They should be motivated and shop around. There are additional provisions that at least some customers might find interesting."
Most insurance experts suggest that consumers wait until the smoke clears and then explore the new marketplace.
"I would advise clients to do nothing because (the new rates) won't start until April 2008, and those polices won't be issued until the middle or end of February," said Edward Burniske of Reynolds, Barnes & Hebb Inc. insurance company in Pittsfield. "Hopefully, your agent will price them out for you, because a lot of the companies are going to give discounts for customers with homeowners' policies or two cars on the same policy."
James T. Harrington, executive director of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, said that 64 percent of state drivers have good enough records to qualify for cheaper rates. Because 80 percent of all drivers already use insurance brokers, he suggested that they continue to do so, but go to two or three to find the best deals.
But critics of competition renewed their charge yesterday that the state is creating a system of insurance haves and have nots. Companies will cherry-pick the least risky drivers in the safest areas.
Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., former state senator from Pittsfield, was a leading opponent of competitive pricing when he oversaw the insurance industry as chairman of the Legislature's Financial Services Committee. Now the Middle Berkshire register of deeds, he remains a critic of ending state control.
"In effect, what has happened is that a playing field that was entirely level for drivers is less level today," he said, "and it is less favorable for some of the most vulnerable drivers."
Last year, under the state-controlled system, drivers received an 11.7 percent premium reduction, and many industry observers expected rates to decline another 10 percent if the state set prices again this year. Nuciforo said he was not impressed by the 7.7 percent average drop in pricing.
"There will be big savings for a few drivers, pretty good savings for other people that are not unlike what they would have had (if the state set the prices), and there are going to be some pretty dramatic spikes for others," he said.
And it will be harder for drivers to tell what they are buying, he added, as insurers can now introduce new products that may be confusing or simply incomprehensible to the lay person.
And the rates still could change. The companies have a chance to amend their prices next week; although many are expected to either keep their proposals the same or to lower them to compete with other providers, they also could increase them.
Eagle Boston Bureau reporter Hillary Chabot contributed to this story.
At a glance ...
New rates were introduced Monday, as Massachusetts is allowing auto insurers to set their own rates for the first time since the 1970s, ending years of state-set premiums.
The average statewide plan will decrease by 7.7 percent. Good drivers could see reductions of as much as 25 or even 35 percent, but bad drivers could see premiums increase up to 9.9 percent.
Consumers are advised to shop around for the best deal; one company could increase the premium for a driver, while another company could offer a decrease of as much as 25 percent.
-
On "Luciforo's" new business venture:
www.jonathanmelleonpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/andrea-nuciforo-park-square-ventures.html
-
On "Luciforo's" corrupt political career:
www.jonathanmelleonpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/10/andrea-f-nuciforo-jr-luciforo-devilish.html
-
On "Luciforo's" write-up in The Boston Globe concerning his collusion with the state's Massachusetts Insurance Companies & other wealthy, corporate elite financial institions lobbying Beacon Hill:
www.jonathanmelleonpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuciforos-corruption.html
-
On "Luciforo's" Strong-Arming of Sharon Henault and then Sara Hathaway out of a 2006 Massachusetts State Government Election for Registry of Deeds in Pittsfield:
www.jonathanmelleonpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/andrea-nuciforo-strong-armed-two-women.html
-
Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Well greetings fellas thanks for the opportunity of post a message , also i would like to know more about State Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo is very interesting , how can i get more information about it , I want to sign up for more details.
Post a Comment
<< Home