State Farm
Recently, State Farm refused to recognize me as an expert because apparently they did not confirm the information they were given. Secondly, State Farm is not in the position to recognize experts. That is all up to the court and I have qualified in many California courts. Pretty interesting. If one is contesting the State Farm expert and State Farm refuses to recognize the Plaintiff's expert, I guess we should give up and go home. Right? Wrong!!!
Salazar vs. Farmers
Recently one of my competitors placed a copy of a Fresno, California court decision on his web site. In the case the judge correctly ruled that my testimony and my report were “lacking proper foundation, reflecting mere speculation and largely being immaterial”. (Pg 15, lines 3&4)
In this case my competitor was retained as an “expert” by Farmer’s Insurance Company. I was hired by the opposing side to review my competitor’s methodology and his conclusions. I never testified at the trial. My only “testimony” in this matter was by way of a deposition.
During the deposition I stated there were too many factors that I didn’t know. I was unable to conduct any inspection of the lock and keys which were critical to the case. Without inspection I could not render any opinion that was based on fact and not speculation. My only basis to render an opinion was based on a few photographs and the observations of others.
The court also acknowledged that time was a big factor. It was approximately nine months after the vehicle was recovered before I could inspect it. A lot of things can change in a vehicle unless it is sealed and stored in a secure place, and not just in a storage yard.
The judge was correct in his ruling, as my findings were based on speculation and not on solid facts personally observed by myself. Had I been able to inspect the lock and keys the judge may have ruled differently. As it was if he had admitted my testimony from the deposition it would have introduced information into the proceedings that was not based on fact.
By posting this case on his website my competitor is trying to infer that my testimony was “kicked out” by the court, and his was accepted. The main point he is missing is that this case was NOT about the opinion of the experts, but was based on the laws of contracts.
The judgment was rendered in favor of Farmer’s Insurance. The judge ruled the Plaintiffs had no insurable interest in the vehicle and there was no “privity of contract” between the legal owner of the vehicle (a corporation) and the insurance company. This case was decided as a matter of law and had nothing to do with the examinations and opinions of “experts”.
If you choose to read the case, I ask you read it in its ENTIREITY and reflect on what is really being said and happening in the case. In particular read the judgment and the judge’s ruling and what is based on.
If anyone is interested in the PDF transcript. Just send an email to robo14@aol.com with a request.
The elite legitimate forensic examiners from the IAIL and the Coalition of Forensic Examiners (Basically locksmiths trying to play lawyers) have tried to play lawyer in this decision. In fact, the case had nothing to do with the experts and involved the fact that the vehicle was insured for personal use and was used for business.
http://www.forensicauto.net/
The great ones did take this ruling and put it up on the http://www.arcforensics.com website to ruin my name through the mud under a link that said Court Conclusions
The boys say I am dilusional with a conspiracy theory. This website will reveal to you that I am not a liar and I am not dilusional. They will go to any length to destroy my good name because they cannot beat me in court!
I will be laying out my case here with just the facts just to show how corrupt and vicious these forensic locksmiths are as well as some of their client insurance companies.
State Farm-I have documented proof of what one of your outside attorneys did to me for you to try to take me down. All of this will be up on this site as well! Totally documented!!!!!!
What makes me different than what they call themselves "Legitimate Forensic Examiners." I substantiate everything I say and all they can do is constantly lie about me.
In the case Sidhu vs. Farmers there was no questioning about a license. In fact, one does not need to be licensed to perform forensic analysis of vehicle components. The fact is that Farmer's insurance company lost this bad faith case because the jury did not believe the expert for the insurance company, you know, a legitimate forensic examiner from the Coalition of Forensic Examiners. Check out the name of the expert for Farmers.