IAG committed and are still committing FRAUD in dealing with the claims by Mr C J and Mrs AC Robinson relating to the fire at 125a Ness Road, Waipapa on 11 September 2011.
1 We left 125a Ness Road at around 09:30 on 9 September 2011 and were in Whangarei at 10:55. Traffic was incredibly heavy due to this date being the opening of the 2011 RWC.
2 The departure was over 14 hours prior to the fire being first seen at 23:48 by neighbours, at that time and all night long the family were in Hamilton, 400Km away from Waipapa.
3 The Fire Service attended, arriving at around midnight, the house by then was fully engaged by the fire and they could only try to contain the blaze.
4 The Fire Service found that a FORCED ENTRY had taken place, we were told VANDALS had caused the fire upon our return at around 17:00 on 10 September.
5 IAG appointed investigators, Russell Joseph and Maurice Fletcher who found no evidence of arson in the debris, the point of origin was not established, the first fuel ignited was not discovered nor were any positive tests for accelerant conducted.
6 No components of an ignition device were found, in fact there was nothing found in the debris to support the determination that the fire was deliberately lit.
7 With us being 400Km away and nothing in the debris to show delayed ignition took place, to allow IAG to decline the claims it required fabrication of evidence.
8 Investigator Martin Jorgensen created a theory of REMOTE IGNITION to allow IAG to decline the claims but it had no basis in fact and no physical evidence to support it.
9 All iterations of the REMOTE IGNITION theory relied on the printer at the fire scene receiving a PRINT COMMAND to cause the fire in same way.
10 Later Joseph and Fletcher planted the remains of a printer on top of a pile of debris that was only created during their investigation in an attempt to create physical evidence in support of the theoretical method of ignition.
11 At a pre-trial hearing in April 2013, Russell Joseph stated under cross examination,
12 In 2014, two and a half years after the fire we were made bankrupt by ASB, having lost everything in the fire, house, business and all our processions. It was inevitable with no payment from IAG.
13 The only creditors in the bankruptcy were ASB, $450,000 and one other for $900. We were not in any financial difficulty prior to the fire.
14 The property had a valuation of $2,995,000 due to an offer to purchase at that price through Ray White estate Agents, our equity, house, contents and vehicles was well in excess of $2,500,000. It was all lost in the fire and that excludes the value of the Lodge business expected to earn $150,000 p.a.
15 I had also been arrested and charged with BLACKMAIL in 2013 when I attempted to sue IAG for using illegal methods, fabrication of evidence, to avoid the insurance claim.
16 Several leading NZ Judges had agreed that it was NOT blackmail if I hadn’t committed ARSON, clearly, if I hadn’t committed arson then I was justified making demands on IAG for payment.
17 In February 2015. Jorgensen gave evidence to a Pre-trial hearing attempting to establish that the remote ignition actually did take place.
18 During this hearing it was established from a computer record in the PC REGISTRY files that the final PRINT COMMAND received by the printer was at 23:08 on 8 September over 24 hours prior to the fire.
19 Jorgensen introduced an EXCERPT from document that he claimed showed that the PRINTER REGISTRY settings had been altered on 9 September 2011 to allow a PRINT command without it being recorded.
20 The defence expert however produced the original record from the PRINTER REGISTRY showing shown that the PRINTER REGISTRY files had last been altered in April 2011.
21 This proved that the last PRINT COMMAND was over 24 hours prior to the fire and that Jorgensen’s document was FALSE – a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice by introducing a falsified document.
22 REMOTE IGNITION did not take place on the night of the fire, the 9 September 2011. The PC Registry records show this at any level of proof, criminal and civil.
23 I was acquitted of the ARSON charges on 1 May 2015, the lack of evidence of the Print command was critical and the solid evidence that no PRINT COMMAND took place on the night of the fire gave me a perfect alibi. Note that Judge McDonald forwarded his decision to Justice Heath so he could dismiss the Blackmail charges as discussed in the Court with the approval of the Crown barrister, Mike Smith.
24 From 400Km away with NO remote ignition there was no way I could have caused the fire – I HAD NO OPPORTUNITY. Circumstantial evidence nor my reputation blackened by IAG’s actions are all irrelevant when I had no opportunity to cause the fire.
25 IAG then had a major problem, the acquittal left them open to meeting the claims with all the interest and damages payments. Their solution was original but fraudulent. IGNORE the acquittal!
26 Lawyer Hlavac sidestepped my request for payment after the acquittal and took the opportunity, once again, to attack me.
27 My polite and perfectly reasonable letter asking if IAG would meet the claims following my acquittal was reported by Hlavac to the Police as a BREACH of my bail conditions for the blackmail case which the Court had assured me would be discharged within days on 1 May 2015.
28 I was arrested and jailed with massive pressure exerted from IAG to resist bail being re-granted.
29 Lawyer Hlavac has consistently claimed that the Arson Charges were WITHDRAWN on 1 May 2015.
30 Using this deliberately MISLEADING argument, an application was made to the Court to continue the blackmail case! I was, until recently, totally unaware this occurred, my lawyer, Catherine Cull, apparently appeared on my behalf but had no instructions from me.
31 Had I been involved the points made in above would undoubtedly have caused a different outcome, this seems to be a massive abuse of process.
32 I was held in jail until the trial, access to my lawyer Catherine Cull was severely restricted and the defence was largely unprepared.
33 To the surprise of the Judge, defence and almost everybody in the Court, the Chairperson of the Jury was very happy as she pronounced a ‘Guilty’ verdict.
34 Newspaper reports on the trial, presumably based on press releases from IAG, also stated that the Arson charges had been dropped and withdrawn by the Police rather than being found NOT GUILTY and acquitted.
On 9 May 2016,
On 11 June 2016,
On 20 June 2016,
35 I was sentenced to nine months home detention, but the damage was really to my reputation which IAG now uses to negate all efforts I make to publicise this situation.
36 In August 2016, we applied to the High Court before Justice Moore to have the litigation rights vested in us to allow us to continue our claims against IAG.
37 IAG’s Lawyers, Brad Cuff and Peter Leeman of DLA Piper acted and made copious written submissions to the Court.
38 We had Lawyer Richard Barnsdale on limited Legal Aid representing us, he was only briefed for an hour prior to the hearing and made no submissions at all.
39 In the decision by Justice Moore, he made the following statement,
40 The only possible source of the evidence on which he based this statement were the submissions made on behalf of IAG by Cuff and Leeman.
41 The application was refused, largely on that basis and other ‘facts’ that pertained to me causing the fire.
42 The High Court had however acquitted me of the arson due to the fact that there was no evidence that Remote Ignition occurred. The evidence on which Justice Moore based his decision was deliberately misleading.
43 After we were discharged from the bankruptcy in May 2017, I wrote again to IAG asking if they intended to meet out claims.
44 Cuff and Leeman of LA Piper replied by letter on the 26 May 2017, I publish it in full below,
45 Almost every paragraph of this letter contains incorrect or misleading statements.
46 Para 2 relates to the original Letters in 2012 declining the claims based on Remote Ignition, but this had been shown to be an invention by their investigator to allow IAG to avoid meeting the claims and never occurred at all.
47 Paras 3 & 4 relate to the bankruptcy caused by IAG fabricating a case based on Remote Ignition against us to prevent them meeting the claims and eventually forcing us into bankruptcy.
48 Paras 5 & 6 relate to the 119(2) application in front of Justice Moore where Cuff and Leeman supplied copious misleading evidence to Justice Moore on behalf of IAG to get the application declined by the Court.
49 Para 7 shows the reason that caused Cuff and Leeman to mislead Justice Moore as they did, to remove any chance of further litigation by us against IAG. Their actions were an illegal perversion of the course of Justice.
50 Para 8 refers to other points in the submissions where DLA Piper claim we could not claim since we did not own the property but the fact that the property was owned by the KILLARA TRUST, set up in 2007 by Fortune Manning, Auckland, was declared at the application for the insurance and the interest of the Killara Trust noted on the Policy documents. Killara Property Limited was the actual owner, this company was part of the trust.
51 Para 9 is a circular argument, Cuff and Leeman misled Justice Moore, had he known that Remote Ignition never took place and I had been acquitted of the Arson charges the ‘Fairness’ position would almost certainly have been reversed.
52 Para 10 includes the ownership issue and refers to outstanding costs, there was a costs order against us in 2013 but we made an application to the Court to roll the costs into the later case which was accepted by the Court. No further costs order has ever been made.
53 Para 11, clearly Cuff and Leeman felt it was worth the risks involved in openly and vindictively misleading Justice Moore on behalf of IAG to prevent the litigation rights being vested in us.
54 Para 12, the IFSO terms do not cover situations where an insurer acts illegally fabricating an entire case to avoid meeting a valid insurance claim.
55 Para 13 gives IAG the wall to hide behind which they enjoy at present, refusing to discuss the position in any way except to defend against my official complaints to the Law Society, LCRO and more recently the New Zealand Police in relation to their illegal actions.
56 The position detailed in the DLA Piper letter demonstrates how IAG has constantly attempted by any means to avoid meeting our claims, doing so from day 1 was Fraudulent and they continue to act in that way to this day.
57 In defending lawyer Hlavac to the LCRO complaint, Nicholas Till QC in February made the following statement,
58 Till QC confirms that the submissions by Cuff and Leeman to Justice Moore in 2016 included the ‘error’ that the arson charges were withdrawn as opposed to me being acquitted since Remote Ignition had been shown never to have occurred. Those ‘erroneous’ submissions were clearly the basis for Justice Moore’s decision in relation to our S119(2) application and were clearly deliberately misleading.
59 Further, the newspaper reports of the blackmail trial stating the charges were withdrawn and where the arson case acquittal was not even mentioned, predate the Justice Moore decision by over six months, their origin was IAG, almost certainly Hlavac, not Justice Moore.
60 The argument put forward by Till QC is also itself misleading, piling falsehood on top of falsehood in an attempt to mislead the LCRO, a pattern that has been repeated endlessly by IAG and the investigators since 2011.
61 The LCRO case still continues.
62 It is easy to see the above facts are true and indisputable.
63 D C Dawson was a key player in IAG’s actions against us, acting, at all times, in IAG’s interest and many times outside the Law and acceptable Police rules such as the Evidence Act. Now he has ‘retired’ and become an equal partner, with Maurice Fletcher, running PINZ Northland Limited, an Insurance Investigator working for IAG and presumably other NZ insurers his true colours throughout the case have been revealed.
IAG commits FRAUD to avoid meeting valid INSURANCE claims, treats its policyholders with utter contempt whilst destroying their lives. Then IAG builds and defends legal barriers to prevent them ever getting the payments due under their policies.