The NAKED TRUTH

13 comments

  1. Maral Patrick says:

    You were set up by IAG, shown to be not guilty in Court with evidence that stands up to any scrutiny, they MUST climb down and pay you now or face being rejected by every decent human on the planet. If it was a mistake then they should act to correct it, if it was as it appears, deliberate and planned and they do nothing to stop it their business will vanish very rapidly.

  2. Edmund Chance says:

    I read this with horror but I don’t think IAG will make any settlement at the levels you are looking for, their letter offering $2,400,000 is very strange but for them to settle at that level would be extraordinary really.

    At this point you are causing them some pain, an annoying bite in the bum of a massive money making machine, they may offer you a more reasonable figure if you let them know that you would accept it.

    You have got out of New Zealand, your wife is young and looks lovely so I suggest you try to enjoy your life, living at a lower level than you attained in New Zealand and save yourself the anguish that is so apparent in many of your pages.

    You state that they claimed on their reinsurance at around $1,700,000 on one of your pages, why not ask them to settle at a little lower figure than that level, say $1,500,000 you could drop all further claims, remove all the adverse publicity and stop being a nuisance to them for the rest of your life.

    Surely it is worth considering and worth putting this forward as a solution, if they just ignore that sort of offer it would look really bad when you talk about it on your blog and that could only strengthen your position, you are only asking for what they were paid for your claim and no more.

    You did nothing wrong but I also suspect your campaign has hardened attitudes against you. It is in their interest to stop it, in your position you have to try to find a solution that enables them to stop without too much cost or loss of face.

    • Clark Everton says:

      Getting money out of anybody in NZ is near f**king impossible man. I red all the pages here and you were a rich b***ard but didn’t need this shit did yu?

      Edmund is spot on, you may stress for f**king yonks tring to get wat you feel is your rite but asking for a lower cash sum may work.

      Wot u got to loss anyway, no pay out now.

      • cjrob224 says:

        Hi Clark,

        See my reply to Edmunds post below, I agree it would be better to take a far smaller sum than battle on endless for what appears to be an impossible dream albeit one which is itself far less than the sum IAG actually should pay us!

        Thanks for your comment, I edited it and used **’s so as not to annoy readers, sorry.

    • cjrob224 says:

      Thanks Edmund,
      Remember we didn’t come up with the $2,500,00 figure, it was made in a letter from Young Hunter, that fact is beyond doubt since they haven’t been able, apparently to show otherwise. The original claim, $2,340,000 in 2011 would now stand at well over $3.5M with all the accrued interest and our loss was well over $3,000,000 in cash and far more in reality.
      However, I accept that getting payments of this scale is unlikely.
      I have been proven to have had nothing to do with the fire and this website reveals the actions taken by IAG to avoid paying in fine detail, this leaves IAG’s actions exposed to all for what they truly are.
      As you suggest, $1,500,000 would be in line with the offer made by the Loss adjuster on day 2 after the fire and less than the reinsurance sum they have received and used for 7 years to their advantage, it would allow us to restart our lives at a lower level and stop suffering the stress of battling on with IAG so we would have no option but to take that sum to end everything for ever and put IAG and NZ well behind us!
      The question however remains, will IAG agree to that suggestion and end the whole affair whilst making the company a massive profit from our misfortune? Only time will tell, the readers of this blog will, I guess, know what happens in the next few weeks!

  3. Chris Galvin says:

    One of my students brought this blog to my attention a couple of weeks ago, I spent a few hours reading it with ever increasing horror.

    Is this the country I live in, can these sort of events be taking place?

    This post, The Naked Truth puts it all beyond doubt, Mr Robinson did nothing to cause the fire, there was nothing he could have done from a large distance away.

    A real expert witness produced the evidence to kill the prosecution but it had been running for almost 4 years, I cannot imagine the stress, turmoil and sense of injustice that must have been suffered by Mr Robinson and his family during that period.

    IAG may hide, smug, saying nothing relying on the effects of the bankruptcy that removed the Robinson’s right to continue the claim but IAG set that situation up almost certainly as a backstop if the criminal case failed to get a result.

    This is now a civil matter but it is a massive failure of the legal system, a massive miscarriage of justice and a damning reflection on IAG and the NZ system that has allowed them to persecute Mr Robinson for over seven years.

    Hopefully, enough people will share my views and together we could act to initiate an inquiry into the events portrayed so vividly and emotionally in the blog, then action should follow with massive penalties to IAG for their actions, which as Mr Robinson keeps stating were criminal and deserve punishment.

  4. Oscar Gutterman says:

    Poor bastards! You deserve every sympathy, it has taken you almost seven years of hell to put together a clear proof of your non involvement with the arson that destroyed your home.

    The insurance company say nothing, do nothing, attempting to force you to attempt to take further legal action were they can pour in mega bucks to meet any case.

    Your campaign is brilliant however, tens of thousands of people around the world are reading it, almost all will think IAG are a S**t insurer and as their website says they rely on their REPUTATION and it is being seriously hurt by this.

    It will take them time before they realise the effect and by then their business may be beyond the point when they could recover it, historically many large companies ignored small annoyances only to be destroyed by them shortly afterwards! Keep hitting them, the truth hurts them and their silence condemns them.

    Good bye IAG, nobody will mourn your disappearance.

  5. Leonie Cummins says:

    Love your post, THE NAKED TRUTH.
    In particular I like the section on IAG’s Code of Ethics, that is serious stuff for an insurance company.
    On their webpage on the topic it asks for breaches of the Code to be reported to an independent agency.
    I recommend doing that, use the same things you outline on the blog and hit them hard, another pile of work for them to deal with and the more pain you pour on the better result you will get.

  6. Catherine Kloss says:

    IAG must be the WORST INSURER in the WORLD.
    They have cheated you and made your life unbearable just by their greed.
    Anybody who has read any of this would be mad to insure property with these crooks.

  7. Oh, what a shame this isn’t happening in South Carolina!

    I have never seen such clear and indisputable evidence of abuse of the legal system by a company in my life.

    In the US, an insurer like Insurance Australia Group (IAG) would be put to rights, fined a huge sum and had their licence to offer insurance policies put under threat of suspension if the matter reoccurred. They would have been forced to sort this out years ago, there was obviously no evidence against the policy holder at any time and with his alibi showing he was such a distance away with no physical connection to the fire all the evidence against him must have been created by the insurers officers to allow them to avoid paying out on the claims.

    In the US, an insurer could not rely on a bankruptcy that their actions, creating false evidence to decline a claim, generated, later to block the right of the wronged policy holder to getting a just settlement payment in the following years. Such actions are considered recursive, the action taken blocking the action to correct the block. The policy holder would not have been in this position had the correct process been followed when the claim was made, the intruder evidence and the alibi of the policy holder left no option, the insurer had a contractual right to meet the claims almost immediately.

    Utterly disgusting and a sad reflection on New Zealand’s legal system and society in general.

  8. Callie Sawers says:

    Finally it makes sense.
    I’ve struggled since I started reading your story, I couldn’t see why they came up with such a stupid idea as the remote ignition, what you call the trigger theory.
    Now it makes sense, it was born out of the need to get around your alibi, right?
    Finding evidence in the debris didn’t do that with the intruder evidence, the intruders could have been responsible but they had to lock you in to the fire and to do that they needed a link and the newspaper printer fire news gave them the first clue but that didn’t work so it was all changed to their stupid trigger system, WOW!
    These guys are really a bit simple but I guess they refuse to talk to you since they have nothing they can say except agree to pay you.
    A crooked insurance company, board members who approve of the system to dodge claims, bent lawyers and dim investigators, sums it all up!
    Publicity like this must shame them all terribly, board approved, how long can they take it?
    Thanks for a great blog, I hope it works out for you.

    Callie

  9. Richard Abel says:

    Fascinating and disturbing report of a massive injustice.

    As you state, ‘The Buck stops here’ on the desk of IAG Chairman Elizabeth Bryan, being Non executive gives her no protection in law, ask any member of the old Exxon Board.

    Elizabeth Bryan has had every opportunity to stop this fiasco and has done ZERO, not a word, not an email or message asking you to verify your claims which would have been the obvious reply to your posts. There is no excuse possible, the lawyers, with self interest, may be advising her to stay silent but they do not bear the ultimate responsibility of her post as Chairman of the Board.

    The reputation and potentially the continuance of IAG as a viable insurance company are her responsibility and it is her duty to the Board, shareholders and policy holders to guard these values to the limit of her abilities.

    The lack of communication with you, a disgruntled policy holder, who appears to have a fair case to argue must be totally outside the Code of Ethics of the company and is inexcusable and baffling bearing in mind the potential legal position her inaction may lead to.

    There is an old maxim in business, ‘the customer is always right’ many modern businesses forget this and put systems in place to get around the principle stated here but it can, as here, backfire very significantly.

    You as a policy holder, at face value, did nothing to cause the fire and IAG declined the claims based on their desire to avoid the claims rather than any real evidence and nothing more since you had a unbreakable alibi. Ignoring your continuing protests as to your treatment further amplifies the validity of your claims and condemns IAG and their Chairman, Elizabeth Bryan who has not responded to direct communications from the you, as a policy holder, to at least establish a dialogue between you and the company.

    One must question if this Elizabeth Bryan actually exists and functions as Chairman of the Board of Directors or is she a fiction lending only her name to the company to their advantage whilst not understanding the responsibilities involved by such actions.

    The laws in New Zealand are based on British Law but IAG seem to ignore them without concern and this, in itself, is disturbing. Ultimately the law takes a back seat, the moral and ethical considerations that are far more serious here and it is within the powers of IAG to resolve the issue without further risk to their reputation and legal status.

    I hope that Elizabeth Bryan instructs the Board to resolve this issue before it reaches a situation were it becomes all consuming for the company.

  10. Leslie West says:

    Fascinating case technically, hard to understand why the insurance company will not settle now, as they should have done in 2011. They really do not have a valid legal argument and the damage to them from you publishing all this in such detail must be massive and ever growing.

    It does make me wonder if the strange incident you reported in your ‘Double Cross’ post, the Letter of Settlement wasn’t an attempt to end the matter that met obstacles, possibly an objection by a Board Member after it was sent. I presume you had no access to a copy of the letterhead used so you forging it would be impossible, it is different to others shown on your blog and the email header also looks genuine and from Young Hunter. You couldn’t have produced it or sent it from New Zealand and it is hard to see a motive for you taking such actions.

    Let us assume that it was a genuine offer, reneged upon, whilst it was a highly despicable action it closely matches the proposal to resolve the issue that I would have made to IAG if I had been their legal council. Getting them out of the position must be a mounting desire in the Boardroom, this achieves it without any acceptance of guilt and removing all the publicity which is increasingly damaging and may lead to serious actions against the company in due course.

    You accepted the offer, albeit a low one compared to the documented loss but I guess you just want to end it. I think it is worth you revisiting that offer and once again accepting it on the blog. It gives them a simple escape route without having to discuss the matter publicity in your blog which could be even more damaging.

    I am happy to assist in any way if you need free legal opinion, albeit not based entirely on New Zealand law since I work in Philadelphia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.