Is this a course in proper business conduct or how to cover up your indiscretions?
Excuse me if I thought CYA memo’s were a good thing. I guess if I learned anything from this article it’s “keep your mouth shut”, “don’t voice your concerns in writing,” and “don’t send emails that say you’re knowingly putting people at risk.”
Leave it to the lawyers to point out the obvious that if you’re doing something illegal, don’t talk about it in email.
This course is mandatory to all exectutives. There will be a 3 day all expense paid trip to the Bahama’s where we will have this training. Call me to discuss what the “proper” way to expense this (cannot put in email).
Regards,
AIG
PS Do not discuss this with direct reports or media.
To think that an industry insider perceived the need for such a course!
Just how far have we dumbed down our colleges? Isn’t a course in Situational Ethics required for graduation?
I’m telling ya, we’ve got to teach these kids how to maintain until we manage to do away with the honest attorneys and judges. Once the power is in the hands of the few and the commissars have been appointed, we can get back to open graft and thievery.
E-mails, reports offered as evidence State Farm pressured engineers to change Katrina conclusions
I’m not sure why this story from the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi is coming out now, after this topic has been talked up for the past 18 months. The story discusses some e-mails between folks at an engineering firm employed by State Farm to examine and analyze Katrina damage in Mississippi. In one of them, a guy with the firm questions the ethics of State Farm if the insurer was pressuring them to change engineers’ reports. Here’s a pdf of the e-mails, followed by the original report and a second amended report. The reports have been known about for some time, and are mentioned prominently in the complaint in McIntosh v. State Farm, which was filed last year. Here’s a pdf of the McIntosh complaint. Perhaps the e-mails were produced recently in discovery, but the pdf of them doesn’t show a Bates stamp — the number code put on most records produced in discovery to help identify individual documents.
One of the things that strikes me about these e-mails is the man complaining about State Farm’s ethics, Randy Down, did not read a prior e-mail from his boss very well. The first e-mail mentioned a claims supervisor with State Farm, identified her as Lecky, Ms. King and she, and Down’s e-mail starts off wondering whether Lecky is a man or a woman. I hope that’s not indicative of the care that went into the firm’s engineer reports. Here’s a second, similar story from Mike Kunzelman of the Associated Press, in which Down said he didn’t have any first-hand knowledge of what he was talking about, and in any event wasn’t involved in working on Katrina claims. The AP story quotes Zach Scruggs, and the e-mails would appear to have been produced in the McIntosh case, where the Scruggses are the plaintiffs’ lawyers. So I’m not sure why the story in the Jackson newspaper quotes a Florida lawyer unconnected with the McIntosh case instead of Zach Scruggs. Perhaps he wasn’t available.
You know, I read the reports and I recommend you read them too. I don’t see a particular problem with ordering the second report, when the first one attributed all damage to the McIntosh home to wind. It was obvious — because the home was still standing and there were water marks on the walls — that flood waters had caused much of the damage. Seems like a bit of an oversight not to mention the flood damage as a cause in the first report, kind of like wondering if Ms. King is a man or a woman. The conclusion of the second report was that both wind and water caused the damage, not that only flooding caused damage, so it doesn’t appear to me the second report is all that problematic. The McIntosh complaint says that State Farm paid the McIntoshes about $36,000 for wind damage to the home.
Is this a course in proper business conduct or how to cover up your indiscretions?
Excuse me if I thought CYA memo’s were a good thing. I guess if I learned anything from this article it’s “keep your mouth shut”, “don’t voice your concerns in writing,” and “don’t send emails that say you’re knowingly putting people at risk.”
Leave it to the lawyers to point out the obvious that if you’re doing something illegal, don’t talk about it in email.
This course is mandatory to all exectutives. There will be a 3 day all expense paid trip to the Bahama’s where we will have this training. Call me to discuss what the “proper” way to expense this (cannot put in email).
Regards,
AIG
PS Do not discuss this with direct reports or media.
That was classic. Thank you for making my Friday
I was trying to think of something clever to say, but you said it best “AIG”.
and you don’t know all of this by now, God help you! You’re going to jail.
To think that an industry insider perceived the need for such a course!
Just how far have we dumbed down our colleges? Isn’t a course in Situational Ethics required for graduation?
I’m telling ya, we’ve got to teach these kids how to maintain until we manage to do away with the honest attorneys and judges. Once the power is in the hands of the few and the commissars have been appointed, we can get back to open graft and thievery.
Or well, life goes on.
E-mails, reports offered as evidence State Farm pressured engineers to change Katrina conclusions
I’m not sure why this story from the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi is coming out now, after this topic has been talked up for the past 18 months. The story discusses some e-mails between folks at an engineering firm employed by State Farm to examine and analyze Katrina damage in Mississippi. In one of them, a guy with the firm questions the ethics of State Farm if the insurer was pressuring them to change engineers’ reports. Here’s a pdf of the e-mails, followed by the original report and a second amended report. The reports have been known about for some time, and are mentioned prominently in the complaint in McIntosh v. State Farm, which was filed last year. Here’s a pdf of the McIntosh complaint. Perhaps the e-mails were produced recently in discovery, but the pdf of them doesn’t show a Bates stamp — the number code put on most records produced in discovery to help identify individual documents.
One of the things that strikes me about these e-mails is the man complaining about State Farm’s ethics, Randy Down, did not read a prior e-mail from his boss very well. The first e-mail mentioned a claims supervisor with State Farm, identified her as Lecky, Ms. King and she, and Down’s e-mail starts off wondering whether Lecky is a man or a woman. I hope that’s not indicative of the care that went into the firm’s engineer reports. Here’s a second, similar story from Mike Kunzelman of the Associated Press, in which Down said he didn’t have any first-hand knowledge of what he was talking about, and in any event wasn’t involved in working on Katrina claims. The AP story quotes Zach Scruggs, and the e-mails would appear to have been produced in the McIntosh case, where the Scruggses are the plaintiffs’ lawyers. So I’m not sure why the story in the Jackson newspaper quotes a Florida lawyer unconnected with the McIntosh case instead of Zach Scruggs. Perhaps he wasn’t available.
You know, I read the reports and I recommend you read them too. I don’t see a particular problem with ordering the second report, when the first one attributed all damage to the McIntosh home to wind. It was obvious — because the home was still standing and there were water marks on the walls — that flood waters had caused much of the damage. Seems like a bit of an oversight not to mention the flood damage as a cause in the first report, kind of like wondering if Ms. King is a man or a woman. The conclusion of the second report was that both wind and water caused the damage, not that only flooding caused damage, so it doesn’t appear to me the second report is all that problematic. The McIntosh complaint says that State Farm paid the McIntoshes about $36,000 for wind damage to the home.
http://www.clarionledger.com/assets/pdf/D069388410.PDF ;; harmful, or documents ”
ANYONE THAT ACTUALLY CONSIDERS PAYING A FEE TO LEARN EMAIL 101 SHOULD BE SHOT.
IJ SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO EVEN PUBLISH THIS ARTICLE / ADVERTISMENT!!
WHICH LEAVES ME TO BELIEVE FOR THE RIGHT $$$$ IJ CAN BE BOUGHT.
DELETING MY BOOKMARK!!!!!!!