Back dating insurance
Specifically, respondent Debra Fiore submitted a fraudulent jewelry appraisal to State Farm Insurance Company in connection with a claim for reimbursement. Hughes, Pinellas Park, FL Order #12-50910-43, April 14, 2017 Respondent, Hillary A.
Almost all of these cases have now been resolved, although one case continues to grind through the appellate courts.However, it can be permissible under certain circumstances.For instance, one may backdate an insurance claim if there was an unavoidable delay between the date the insured event occurred and the day the claim was made.In the context of mutual funds, a feature allowing fundholders to use an earlier date on a letter of intent to invest in a mutual fund in exchange for a reduced sales charge, e.g.Giving retroactive value to purchases from the earlier date.The practice of allowing a mutual fund shareholder to use previous purchases of the fund's shares so as to qualify for reduced commission charges on subsequent purchases.
Backdating is used when a fund offers declining proportional sales charges on larger purchases.
Civil Penalty: $5,000 Abelmi Cabreja, Palisades Park, NJ Order #14-53028-35, April 10, 2017 Respondent, Abelmi Cabreja, knowingly submitted false and misleading information on an automobile policy declaration dated April 14, 2013, to CURE Auto Insurance Company, by failing to disclose that the vehicle would be operated primarily by Karina Francisco. Mc Ghee, knowingly made a false statement to Progressive Insurance Company during a recorded statement of no loss on August 5, 2016 at a.m., specifically, by stating neither she nor her insured vehicle had been in an accident during the period the policy was cancelled, when in fact she had.
Civil Penalty: $3,000 Kenneth Bless, Irvington, NJ Order #16-54345-35, April 10, 2017 Respondent, Kenneth Bless, knowingly provided false and misleading information to Progressive Insurance Company on an automobile application dated May 27, 2016. Kenneth Bless failed to list an additional resident driver. May, Plainfield, NJ Order #16-53404-35, April 25, 2017 Respondent, Antoine C.
One dealer’s back dating of a contract, along with the failure to properly disclose the purchase of insurance, led to a very costly lesson.
In a recent July 2010 decision by California’s 4th District Court of Appeal, the Court held that a dealership violated several laws by back dating the retail installment sales contract and failing to properly itemize the purchase of insurance on the contract. The Court found that the back dating violated the Single Document Rule because one could not look at the rewritten contract and determine that it was actually signed six days later than indicated.
The Court gave the back dating class restitution of $50 each, which amounted to $222,785.