Fire/Arson Investigations :  Fire/Arson Investigations The fastest message board... ever.
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator. 
Allstate Insurance Company
Posted by: ssklar (IP Logged)
Date: December 19, 2006 12:43PM

For those of you who work for or against Allstate, I thought that you would be interested in Allstate's recent responses to Request To Admit that I sent to them in a wrongful death case. Here are some of there responses:

Request: Admit that Allstate Insurance Company had a duty to notify all interested parties that the scene examination would take place.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.

Request: Admit that Allstate Insurance Company had a duty to notify all interested parties before the Virginia Park scene was altered.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.

Request: Admit that in connection with the fire investigations carried on in the ordinary course of Allstate's busniness, Allstate Insurance Company has a duty to put all known interested parties on notice before conducting an origin and cause investigation at the scene.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.


Request: Admit that even when an action has not been commenced and there is only a potential for litigation, the Allstate Insurance Company is under aduty to preserve evidence that it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to potential litigation.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.


Request: Admit that Allstate's Comapny procedures requires that all interested parties be placed on notice prior to an origin and cause being conducted.

Response: Denied.

Request: Admit that when Allstate is an interested party it expects to be placed on notice prior to an origin and cause investigation being conducted.

Response: Objection. The phrase "interested party" is vague and further, theis request improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michigan law. However, when Allstat is a party to a contract of insurance that requires that notice of certain events be given, then Allsate expects those contracting parties to comply with those notice requriements.

Request: Admit that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and its ivnestigators have a duty not to spoliate evidence.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.


Request: Admit that Allstate Insurance Company had a duty to the Plaintiff not to spoliate evidence at the subject scene.

Response: Objection. The allegation improperly implies a duty which does not exist in Michlgan law. Over that objection, same is Denied.


Stuart Sklar



Subject Views Written By Posted
  Allstate Insurance Company 1728 ssklar 12/19/2006 12:43PM
  Re: Allstate Insurance Company 1055 ttijerina 12/20/2006 05:07AM
  Re: Allstate Insurance Company 1016 ttijerina 12/20/2006 05:08AM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.