Travelers Insurance
reviews and complaints

My home was burglarized on June 28th 2023 and I immediately called the police to assist and enter the house. I also called the Travelers insurance company and learned Nick was my agent. He said to take pictures of the damages and list all stolen items and gave me a number to upload all the receipts and claim information to. I had to have my entire front door, frame and screen door replaced along with items missing. After months of hearing nothing I learned Nick was no longer working at travelers and they closed my claim! I then was assigned Yolanda, who now has ALL the information and pictures etc...and is also GHOSTING ME! It is now Middle January 2024 and I am still hearing nothing. when I call, Yolanda says, I'll call you shortly, that was 8 days ago.

Travelers cancelled my policy stating I have file too many claims. I was with state farms insurance when my spouse told me to join him with travelers. I had a 2012 Honda accord and my spouse had his. I changed my car in 2022 and got my own policy in August 2022 with travelers. I had a hit and run which travelers gave me only about $700. which didn’t even cover the cost, I spent way more but never asked travelers for more. I then had a nail go into my front tire when I went to wash and called travelers for road side assistance. I had a baby on board and was in a place that I didn’t feel safe. Travelers didn’t send help until 10pm that day leaving me stranded and feeling really sad. I cried! Now it’s time to renew my policy and they sent me a letter of cancellation stating I didn’t sign a driver exclusion form. I called and spoke with an agent on 08/05/23 and the agent email me the doc and told me to sign and send it back which I did. On 08/14/23 I received another letter from travelers stating that my exclusion form is incomplete. I called to find out why I was sent that letter as I already emailed the form and received a confirmation letter. The underwriter told me that the policy remains cancelled because I filed too many claims. The underwriter was counting claims on my spouse policy against me. which I find very unfair. I have to go thru the hustle of searching for another insurance and starting all over. It is really sad and mean to be treated like this. Travelers wants my money but doesn’t want me to ask for any services otherwise I face the threat of losing my coverage. Why is travelers then an insurance company? Please review.

Our claims professional, Andrew Decker is only agreeing to do a partial repair on the hail damage to our roof, gutters, soffit, fascia, skylight from a hail storm on July 3, 2023. So now we are going to be left with a mix matched roof (which is against Minnesota laws) due to only a partial repair as well as other damage from the hail storm which he refuses to acknowledge. Our contractor agrees that the shingles will not match as well as to the fact that the adjuster send out intentionally overlooked hail damage that our contractor pointed out to him. They are completely uncooperative.

I filed this claim first week in April 2023. I was assigned a claim # and a claim representative named John Potts.

He called me and I sent him pictures of the water damage. I also told him I had just had the apartment renovated and the final bill that I paid to have that done.

After that I couldnt get hold of him. He would not answer my calls. I called his supervisor and I called my agent to no avail. After a few weeks, he came to my house and looked at the damage.

While he was here he told me the claim would not be covered because it was more than two weeks old, Then, he said if I had paid so much to renovate the apartment another 5 or 6 thousand dollars shouldn't be a problem for me.

I waited a week or so and I never got anything in writing as to why the claim was not covered. He was condescending and disrespectful to me. I think some portion of my premium may contribute to his salary. I woulld like to know why he would speak to me that way.

I filed a claim for jewelry theft in my home. Travelers Indemnity LIED to me and said "ok, we will mail you a check to reimburse the items that were stolen." Two weeks pass by and I call to ask where the check was at. They said "Oh, we aren't mailing you a check because your home security system will not return our calls." I asked which home security system company they are calling and it's not even the correct company. This company is completely negligent. Kieran Gray and Amelia Graham (the manager -- who has yet to return one of my many phone calls & emails) refuse to look into the matter or assist me in any way. They are totally useless. Canceled this policy and went with a much more reliable company!

I have been assessed THREE separate UNJUST fees from Travelers. First, because I wanted to pay my premium, in full, using my credit card, rather than giving them access to my bank account, I was assessed an additional $30 fee. Second, because I was not with my previous insurance company for a period of more than 2 years, I was assessed an additional $53 fee. (I usually am forced, due to affordablility, to comparison shop for insurance, every year. And, yes, to get the most affordable rate, I usually end up changing insurance companies, yearly. I have NO claims and a clean driving record). Third, I just today received another revised Declarations document, saying I owed Travelers an additional $137, without any explanation why. I do NOT understand WHY and HOW Travelers can keep accessing me additional fees, AFTER the policy was already in place, for a certain amount. I have already filed complaints against Travelers with the Attorney General's office, the Federal Trade Commission and the Insurance Commissioner's office. I am TIRED of Travelers obviously unscrupulous, LYING tactics!

Hello,

I had water damage on July 26th, 2022. Since I have been working with Traveler's insurance, they have already changed the one adjuster who left the job and replaced with Mr. Michael Wehrle.

I have also hired a third-party insurance (Morga Elite Specialist) adjuster so he can help us with the estimate.

My home is currently unlivable due to water damage. I have reported a few accidents to Mr. Michael Wherle informing him about my old parent living with me. Mt dad fell down two times. My home is extremely unsafe since all the carpets are ripped open by the water restoration company and nails are popping out. I cannot live in this anymore.

I have reported to the insurance and there is no response. I have attached the email proof showing my emails to the insurance company. I understand that Mr. Micahel has a family emergency and taking care of the family. I am fully sympathetic to him, but the insurance company also needs to consider my situation, which is very dangerous to live in my current home.

Whatever you do, never purchase Business Owners Insurance from Travelers Insurance Company, because these con-artists will weasel out of every claim that you could possibly provide.
They are liars, cheaters, thieves, scumbags and deceivers.
They will take your premiums each and every month, but then not cover you when you need their assistance the most.
The especially worst Claims Analyst there, is Janet Trajbar, sometimes called Janet “Trash-bar” by those around her back.
This woman Janet Trajbar epitomizes everything that’s wrong with the property and liability insurance industry, especially at Travelers Insurance.
So do you yourself a favor and skip by, when Travelers Insurance name comes up when it’s time to choose an insurance policy.

We had a hot water heater break in our basement and caused water to leak everywhere. Insurance company told us to contact plumber and restoration company which we did. The plumber replaced the hot water heater and the restoration company cleaned up the water. Insurance company refused to pay the restoration company or cover any of our personal belonings.

My wife was involved in an accident where our car was totaled and she was injured, August 1,2022, and this has been the worst experience I have had from any insurance company. They have not fought for us, we have had to do our own calling, filed claim against the other insurance company, and Travelers had done NOTHING to show we are taken care of. This insurance was recommended when we purchased our home on a VA loan, and will be switching as soon as we can.

called in to change policy found out had been not covered because your company didn't input new address and state so i was not covered even though i paid you plus paid $200 for start of new period

now agent telling me i have to be treated like new customer

if this is way you treat long time customers

also you cant even get my home off policy sold it and you were notifed

Not only did they raise the premium. but to really add insult to injury they added on a $83.00 service fee (premium fee) Not only do I have to pay a yearly premium, but they are charging me tor paying the premium - tell me where can anyone find any logic to that. Insurance - legalized thievery.

I would kindly like an explanation to this premium fee and why I was charged for it and exactly what it is for. Are you charging me for paying my insurance. Do you wear a mask and carry a gun.?

I filed a claim on July 26, for my car that was totaled because of the flood damage in St Louis Mo. I haven’t been compensated for my loss, even though You have took possession of my car. There is a problem with the security request for DocuSign, you have put my landline telephone number in this security request, which cannot get text messages, I don’t have a smart phone, but even When I tried to use my daughters smart phone, your security request will not allow me to remove the landline number to put in another number. I have stated this to mr kellog several times, but he continues to send the exact same message, I have received this same email at least 6 times. If this continues I will never be compensated. I have asked to be compensated for not being able to get a rental car. Kevin Moran will only make another reservation for enterprise and hertz to no avail, because they don’t have cars. I am paying people to use their transportation. I asking you for help ASAP with this matter. Thank you

Filed a homeowners claim because a bad storm took out my roof and HVAC unit. Was told I had to pay deductable which I did and it took a month to get the money to pay my roofers then it took another month to get the money to pay my HVAC guys. Only they did not pay the full $8083 for my HVAC. Their claim was that I had to pay a deductable also for my HVAC unit therefore they only paid $6099. However they had already sent me their estimate on paper from my Travelers agent that stated they would pay $7814.43. They will not return my calls nor my emails. My agent that refused to pay out what was estimated is named Zach Pulliam. I have filed a complaint with the NC Insurance Commission to try and resolve. Never had an insurance company not pay at least what they estimated.

Back in Jan 2022 I had put in a claim cause I was parked and it was 5 am and my SUV sits high and a guy park his car behind me and it was close and blank I put a dent and my claim adjuster called me only once and didn't tell me the consequences of filing only once we spoke and was told it wouldn't hurt me well he put me a at fault and damaging my insurance driving record if he would had told me that it was filed that way I would have took time to do some one and one out of pocket with the other person now my insurance up and I have this I called him and he said yes he spoke to me once and that what I thought very rude can I be reached cause 2100 dollar where I never saw what the guy state or I was niether inform after

I had a weather related accident 06/08/22 on my way to work. I immediately filed a claim with Travelers on their website. I uploaded photos of the damage to my vehicle on the website. It took 2 days for some guy named Kevin to leave me a message to call my adjustor Eric Falen. I called Eric multiple times over the next 2 weeks. He never answers his phone, he doesn't return phone calls, and he doesn't return my multiple electronic messages. So I made several calls to Kevin and left messages because he never answers his phone. He also does not return phone calls. i left several messages for Kristen Heredia the claims manager. She also doesn't answer her phone and doesn't return calls. I finally hit "0" for operator and Leigh Hicks answered and told me I have to go see an adjustor, one will not come out to look at my vehicle. I was instructed to take my vehicle to Ray's Car Star between 1:00 and 3:00pm, the only hours available for an adjustor. I had already filed my claim with detailed info and photos. I was told Ray's Car Star would be available for me to see the adjustor 06/28/22 so I missed time from work and drove around 40 miles round trip to go there. Once there I was told they can't do anything until they get something from Travelers. Again, calling Travelers did no good because no one at Travelers answers their phones. At one point in this ordeal I was told my adjustor is out of the office for family reasons. God forbid they assign me an adjustor who is actually at work. My agent actually got back to me and made some calls then someone from Travelers said I need to upload more photos and information on an app sent via text. Why was none of this explained over the past 3 weeks? I uploaded the required photos and duplicate information and now have to wait days for someone to contact me, at which point I will have to miss more work and drive another 40 or so miles to hopefully see an adjustor. Travelers is one of the worst companies I have ever had to deal with, and the worst insurance company I have dealt with by far. I will be shopping for a new insurance company now.

To see the video version, see airofusion.com and click "see current show".

Travelers has been violating the civil rights of an elder homeowner for the past fifteen years. The following is a letter (without its attached 667 pages of 62 Exhibits) we sent to Travelers marked "urgent". Travelers refused to respond.

*****

Travelers insured our home in 2007 under policy no. [protected]. By 2012, Travelers had refused to renew our policy in 2011, promised not to settle an uncovered claim by Jessie (p. 1), and yet settled it without our knowledge or consent and despite our vehement objections. (p. 4) Before it settled, Travelers informed us that any settlement would be illegal and that no “person can be estopped to deny its validity.” (See the case that Travelers cited in Ex. 1, Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 478, at p. 512). Travelers’ illegal settlement forced us to be its involuntary beneficiaries. We refused to sign it. We hereby claim its promissory benefits.

We reply to Travelers’ answer dated 3/4/13 to our consumer complaint to the California Department of Insurance. (p. 16) We demand that Travelers clean up its unconscionable mess. We demand that Travelers pay us an attorney of our choice to fix all problems caused by its illegal settlement, including all damages it is causing to our monetary claim in the liquidation of Jessie’s insurance, United Contractors Insurance Company (UCIC). (p. 24) UCIC’s liquidation is now in its final stages. The Delaware Department of Insurance has given us more time to find an attorney, but the mess is too big for us to handle without addressing Travelers’ responsibilities.

A. Ms. Bernier’s Construction Case.

Ms. Bernier’s eldest son, Jessie, destroyed her home in 2007. (p. 37) Ms. Bernier’s agreement with Jessie was oral. It was not “at arm’s length.” She is now 78 years old. She has been living in an unsafe home since 2007. In 2007, Ms. Bernier sued Jessie (hereinafter the Construction Case). A Presiding Judge was tricked into signing a baseless order on 10/16/07. (p. 79) That’s not even his duty. (C.R.C., Rule 10.603) Jessie is the suspect. On 10/17/07, Jessie told Mr. Kufel of Travelers’ Subrogation Department about the baseless order. (p. 83) Jessie claimed written contracts. (p. 59) Travelers’ document expert opined that the contracts were forgeries. (p. 123) Two separate document experts unanimously concluded the same. (Ex. 8)

Travelers was in contact with UCIC in 2007. (p. 60) Travelers never told Ms. Bernier about UCIC. Travelers never subrogated any part of claim no. UMZ7908 against UCIC. Jessie lodged the baseless order and his forgeries in the Construction Case. Ms. Bernier informed Judge So that the baseless order was unsupported. (p. 134-35) Judge So tried to vacate the unsupported baseless order. (p. 136) Judge Hayes denied Jessie’s abuse of process. (p. 137) Notably, Judge Hayes found the baseless order had been “vacated as unsupported.” Judge Denton found it had been “vacated as unsupported.” (p. 138) The Construction Case trial transcript proves otherwise. The baseless order was final under CA C.C.P. § 391.7, not interim under § 391.1. Judge So’s order to strike was thus ineffective. On 4/14/09, Jessie’s attorney cross-examined Ms. Bernier.

MR. HAINES: “Now, you have been declared by courts in San Diego County a vexatious litigant; isn’t that true?”

MS. BERNIER: “Not true.”

Q. You have never been declared a vexatious litigant in San Diego County?

A. What I say, I have not been declared vexatious in this case…

Q. Ma’am, you have in the past been declared a vexatious litigant; isn’t that true?

A. It’s in a different case, and it has nothing to do with this case, and it’s not something –it’s because I did not post a bond. That’s why…

Q. Now, Ma’am, take a look at Exhibit 32. Do you see that Judge So signed an order on October 16, 2007? Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Declaring you and your son Hans to be vexatious litigants; isn’t that true? True?

A. Not true.

Q. So you understand that you were not declared a vexatious litigant by Judge So as of October 16, 2007?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You do what?

A. I do declare that I was not declared a vexatious litigant on October (sic) 6, 2007.

Q. When were you declared a vexatious litigant?

A. It was in the Millerd, MUE, Universal Enterprises, and it was not October 16, 2007.

Q. Ma’am, I am wanting to know, what date were you declared a vexatious litigant?

A. I don’t’ remember the exact date. It’s in 2000 – around that time, 2000 – I don’t know.

Q. How many lawsuits have you filed in San Diego County in the last 10 years?

MR. KINSEY: Objection, irrelevant.

MR. HAINES: The relevance is that the basis for this lawsuit I can argue is specious because the courts have declared her a vexatious litigant and she does this all time. She has sued people more than 23 times, as far as I know, in the last 10 years, which created the fact that she became a vexatious litigant. [emphasis added].

THE COURT: “Well it’s been established that she is a vexatious litigant, or at least as of October 16, 2007, [she] was.” MR. KINSEY was also mutually mistaken about the effect of the order to strike. He said “There is one [document] I think we may have missed. It’s 157, the order striking vexatious litigant, pre‐filing order.” THE COURT: “I took judicial notice of that.”

As a direct result, the Delaware Deputy Receiver in UCIC’s liquidation finds that Ms. Bernier “failed to prove that any property damages… had not been compensated by Travelers.” (p. 31) The Receiver finds that the damages Jessie caused to her home were “either satisfied by the payments to her from her homeowner’s insurer or was fully adjudicated before Judge Nevitt, with the exception of the water and sewer line damages for Proof of Claim No. 964.01.” (p. 32)

Judge Nevitt failed to determine what happened in the Construction Case. Ms. Bernier did not fail at anything in the Construction Case. Judge Nevitt denied Ms. Bernier’s request for specific findings. (p. 142) She was not “afforded due process in Judge Nevitt’s Courtroom.” Judge So’s order to strike kept her in the dark about the continued effect of the baseless order. Other than the baseless order dated 10/16/07, there is nothing in the record of the Construction Case to provide a meaningful explanation for the failure underlying Judge Nevitt’s judgment.

Extrinsic and collateral fraud appears on the face of the judgment. Explicitly “in light of” the baseless order, the Court failed to determine what happened. (p. 140) A baseless vexatious litigant pre‐filing order can “tread on a litigant’s due process right of [meaningful] access to the courts.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057. (9th Cir. 2007) Judge Nevitt found Ms. Bernier’s experts were ‘more credible’ than the parties. (p. 141) Jessie had no experts.

B. Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case.

Judge Nevitt’s judgment is a Rorschach Test. When combined with the baseless order, it becomes a weapon to tread on Ms. Bernier’s First Amendment right to assemble with counsel and redress her grievances. Attorney Freedman, who pleaded the complaint in the Construction Case, “told the insurance company (as all attorneys are doing) that your mom [Ms. Bernier] is crazy, vexatious... and that she does not deserve 1 penny for any of her claims.” (p. 143) To cover up his malpractice for having failed to tender her defense of Jessie’s cross‐complaint in the Construction Case to Travelers, Freedman concocted a story conflating the baseless order. (Ex. 15) Ms. Bernier took Freedman’s deposition in pro per. Freedman admitted his perjury. (p. 149)

Desperate for real help, Ms. Bernier retained attorney Dearn on a $6,000 a month flat‐fee basis. Jessie contacted Dearn. In an email to us, Dearn agreed to conspire with Travelers, Jessie, attorney Freedman (substituted by Kinsey) et al, to obtain their cooperation and their declarations to designate her vexatious and to require her to post bonds in all of her pending lawsuits. Dearn explicitly admitted that the objective of this breach of fiduciary duty was to dismiss all her cases, not on their merits, and then have her dilapidated property attached upon her death. (p. 150)

Jessie relied on Judge Nevitt’s judgment in support of his subsequent coverage dispute with UCIC. UCIC entered into a settlement agreement in ICS v. UCIC, case number [protected], to waive “indemnity coverage for construction defects for the work performed” at Ms. Bernier’s home in 2007. (p. 153) UCIC also agreed to pay for attorneys to defend Jessie against all of Ms. Bernier’s efforts to redress her grievances stemming from the failed Construction Case. (p. 156)

In May 2011, Jessie sued Ms. Bernier and Hans alleging malicious prosecution of the Construction Case. (p. 158) Jessie tendered our defenses to Travelers. (p. 175) Jessie knew our attorneys would not do so. Jessie wanted money from Travelers. Desperate to ferret out the truth in the Construction Case, we agreed to allow Travelers to defend us, but only upon the strictest of stipulations and advice from its tripartite attorneys that Travelers could not lawfully settle. If we would’ve been warned that Travelers might settle, then we would’ve refused Jessie’s tender.

“The public policy underlying section 533 – to deny coverage for and thereby discourage commission of wilful wrongs – is not implicated when an insurer indemnifies an ‘innocent’ insured held liable for the willful wrong of another person: ‘The public policy against insurance for losses resulting from such [wilful criminal] acts is usually justified by the assumption that such acts would be encouraged, or at least not dissuaded, if insurance were available to shift the financial burden of the loss from the wrongdoer to the insurer... This policy, however, does not apply when the wrongdoer is not benefited and an insured who is innocent of the wrongdoing receives the protection afforded by the contract of insurance.” [emphasis added; Downey, supra, at p. 514]

By September 2012, Ms. Bernier filed bankruptcy. A month later, during her bankruptcy stay and without our knowledge or that of our tripartite attorneys, Travelers negotiated to pay Jessie $325,000 to dismiss his malicious prosecution claims. Upon learning of the settlement, we claimed a conflict with Travelers under Rhodes v. Chicago Ins. Co., 719 F.2d 116, 120. (5th Cir. 1983). We withdrew our previous tenders of defense. (p. 180) We waived the policy. (p. 185)

We released Travelers from all its policy obligations by waiving all policy benefits and by informing Travelers that we would personally finance our own litigation costs by representing ourselves in pro per. Our waiver implied that we would not “seek indemnity from Travelers for any settlement or judgment against her” and that we “would hold Travelers harmless in any direct action Jessie or ICS might pursue against Travelers after obtaining a judgment against her.” Jessie’s malicious prosecution claims were not covered under Hurvitz v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., [protected] Cal.App.4th 918. There was nothing to indemnify.

We attempted to clarify by saying that we were firing Travelers permanently. To the extent that there was any failure on our part to communicate our intentions to Travelers, that failure was caused by Travelers’ earlier representations to us that it would be against the law for Travelers to settle Jessie’s malicious prosecution claims. Travelers never explained how it could be lawful for Jessie or ICS to pursue any malicious prosecution judgment against Travelers.

We did not accept cumis counsel because we did not want Travelers to have any further control over our defenses. We had a conflict with Travelers’ tripartite attorneys because they first advised us that any settlement would be illegal, but then refused to provide any further coverage advice after Travelers negotiated the settlement. (p. 217-19) Travelers instructed said attorneys to refuse to substitute out of our defenses. (p. 193) Travelers shoved its settlement down our throat.

C. The Travelers Case.

We retained attorney Rosen who filed the matter of Bernier et al v. Travelers et al., case no. [protected] (hereinafter “The Travelers Case”; Ex. 23), and claims 964.01 and 964.02 on 3/12/14 in the Delaware matter of the liquidation of UCIC. The Travelers Case was an attempt to 1. Set aside Judge Nevitt’s Construction Case judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, and, 2. Deny the validity of Travelers’ settlement with Jessie and ICS. ICS is his revoked alter ego.

Attorney Rosen notified Travelers that the settlement had been breached. He asked it to enforce its own settlement. (p. 259) Travelers deferred compliance of its settlement to attorney Howe. (p. 262) Attorney Howe advised Travelers to rely on the Hurvitz case. (p. 222) Attorney Rosen filed case no. 2014‐11015 against Jessie for breach of the settlement. (Ex. 27)

Judge Pressman scheduled 5/2/14 for all dispositive motions and denied ex parte requests to address Rosen’s scheduling conflicts. Ms. Bernier asked Judge Pressman if he had read our opposition to Jessie’s Anti‐SLAPP motion. He replied “Not at all. No. This is ‐ it’s very clear to me that the SLAPP motion is well‐taken that this case is one that needs to be dismissed. It meets all the qualifications of a SLAPP statute, so I’m more than satisfied with my tentative.” (p. 276)

In pursuit of her threat (p. 150) to conspire with Jessie and Travelers, Attorney Dearn filed a vexatious litigant motion as supported by a list of 13 lawsuits. Judge Pressman stepped in our case to interfere with our opposition. He issued a vexatious litigant order upon his own list of 19 lawsuits, including small claims and bankruptcies, and two cases filed by other persons also named Bernier, Bernier v. Sitz, 2012‐47774, and Bernier v. Beaulieu, 2014‐16218. (p. 283-84)

Attorney Dearn then passed that torch unto Travelers who moved for a vexatious litigant order based on Dearn’s pre‐filing order. (p. 292) Judge Strauss granted its motion and ordered each of us to deposit $50,000 with the Court or else the Travelers Case would be dismissed with prejudice. That would violate CA C.C.P. § 391.2. The pivotal issue in Judge Strauss’ order is his reliance on Hurvitz to find us unlikely to prevail in the Travelers Case, 2013‐58680. (p. 308) We were denied our rights to appeal Judge Strauss’ dismissal based on the same vexatious findings.

D. Jessie’s Second Malicious Prosecution Case.

On 2/16/17, we were each served with a deposition subpoena in Jessie’s second malicious prosecution case (p. 309-10) against attorney Rosen. (hereinafter the Rosen Case; Ex. 33) From 2/16/17 to 5/12/20, we tried various legal means to respond. Our depositions were the only way to ferret out the truth and to prevent injustice against Rosen. Attorney Howe had requested a restraining order that Hans stay away from Howe’s office. (p. 324) Howe had also been tracking and monitoring us since 2009. (p. 336) No reasonable person would’ve contacted Howe directly. (p. 341) We claimed the promissory benefits of the settlement. Travelers denied it. (p. 345)

“We do not view the present lawsuit as a continuation of the prior lawsuit that we handled under claim number HHN6256 as the current lawsuit is against Mr. Rosen and relates to two separate actions you filed against Jessie and ICS in 2013 and 2014. We have reviewed the settlement agreement and do not see this complaint as a violation of the terms of the settlement agreement, again because the current complaint is against Mr. Rosen and not yourselves.” (Id.)

But for Travelers’ illegal settlement, we would not have retained Rosen to challenge the settlement. In the Rosen Case, Jessie alleged malicious prosecution of the Travelers Case. In the Travelers Case, we denied the validity of the settlement of the Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case. We also sought to set aside Judge Nevitt’s judgment in the Construction Case due to extrinsic fraud. In the Settlement Case [protected], we sought to enforce breaches of the settlement of Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case. Hans attempted to intervene in the Rosen Case. The Court denied Hans for the same reasons Travelers gave us.

“[I]t is clear from Hans’ proposed pleading that he not only wishes to resolve issues related to potential insurance coverage for his deposition in this matter, but he also wishes to relitigate issues between and among he, Jessie, and his mother that were resolved in prior litigation.” (p. 349) “[T]he basis of Hans’ claims against Travelers is that Travelers is required to provide an attorney for Hans’ deposition in this case. However, Hans cites to no language in the Travelers policy that requires the insurer to provide a defense in a case where Hans is not even a defendant.” [emphasis added] (p. 351)

In Ms. Bernier’s bankruptcy, Judge Mann had acknowledged her right to contest the validity of the settlement. (p. 356-57) She appealed that order. Travelers interfered with her appeal by consummating its illegal settlement during the pendency of her appeal, rendering it moot. (p. 360) Judge Deddeh overlooked the promissory benefits of the settlement to “eliminate any monetary damages exposure to Bernier and/or Hans whether or not such exposure is, or could be considered to be covered by the terms of the Travelers insurance policies.” (p. 5)

Because our civil rights are being violated, we filed a federal case against Travelers in the Southern District. The settlement was at issue, not the policy that had expired in 2011. (Ex. 42)

“In [the Rosen Case,] case no. 2015‐38886, Jessie and ICS allege that they successfully sued Bernier and Hans for Malicious Prosecution in prior case no. 2011‐91919 [claim HHN6256]. The filing of case no. 2015‐38886 is in violation of Jessie, ICS, and Howe’s covenant, detailed in the settlement.” (p. 365)

Travelers then filed a vexatious litigant motion based on 17 related lawsuits, including [protected] and [protected]. Travelers’ motion stayed our lawsuit. We opposed. Judge Anello took it under submission for almost four months, permitting the Rosen Case to proceed to trial. Judge Anello then cited the result of his own interference, a $1.4 million judgment in the Rosen Case in Jessie’s favor, as his reason to grant Travelers’ vexatious litigant motion enjoining any further complaint in the Southern District pertaining only to the policy. (p. 408) He ordered a $50,000 bond. When we failed to pay, he dismissed our complaint without prejudice. (p. 410)

Judge Anello disagreed with Judge Strauss that our failure to post $50,000 had resulted in the dismissal of our claims, to deny the validity of the settlement, with prejudice. Otherwise, that order would’ve been in violation of CA C.C.P. § 391.2. (p. 382) Although Judge Anello repeated our pleading that “Travelers did not respond to Plaintiffs’ claim of damages caused by violating case 91919’s settlement” (p. 378) and he did take judicial notice of the settlement (p. 374), he did not consider its promissory benefits or its illegal nature. He found that “Jessie and ICS prayed for relief from Glenn Rosen and the Rosen Law Firm, not Plaintiffs... Thus, no claim was made and no suit was brought against Bernier or Hans for damages arising from case 38886…” (p. 383-84)

We appealed. Without facts, the Ninth Circuit relied on Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056‐57 (9th Cir. 2007) and affirmed because the Travelers policy did not cover our defenses in the Rosen Case 2015‐38886. (p. 413) It too overlooked the settlement.

On 2/15/19, we each filed a motion under CA C.C.P. § 391.8 to be removed from the vexatious litigant list in order to file a civil rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983. (p. 415-18)

Ms. Bernier’s motion was “cancelled” and kicked. Judge Sturgeon denied our requests to file our civil rights case. He found, “the first cause of action is time‐barred, in that it alleges a conspiracy involving Travelers that occurred in 2007.” (p. 421) The transcript in the Construction Case in 2009 establishes that said conspiracy was not limited to 2007. He too overlooked the settlement.

The insurance agent who sold and maintained the Travelers policy to Ms. Bernier had been located in the Central District. So we filed a civil rights lawsuit in the Central District against Travelers under 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201 to declare the settlement void. (p. 423) Travelers answered. (p. 465) But Travelers also filed another vexatious litigant motion.

The magistrate found our declaratory relief claims, to deny the validity of the settlement, had been “on the same subject” as the Construction Case. (p. 511) He recommended that our complaint be dismissed due to the amount of cases we’ve endured, which “suggests” we have a “vendetta” against Travelers and Jessie. He found our claims “border on delusional.” (p. 510)

The de novo review was meaningless. (p. 516-17) The Judge ordered a $50,000 bond. We failed to pay. He dismissed our lawsuit without prejudice. (p. 519) They too overlooked the settlement.

Pursuant to Insurance Code § 12921.4(a), we demanded a final action on our consumer complaint to the California Department of Insurance to deny the validity of the settlement. The CDI refused. We filed a writ of mandate under CA C.C.P. § 1085 in the Southern District. (p. 520) Judge Anello dismissed our writ of mandate without prejudice. (p. 553) We appealed.

We filed our Opening Brief. (Ex. 54) The CA DOJ intervened on 3/18/20. We expected the CA DOJ would investigate. We urged it to act before the oral argument of attorney Rosen’s appeal on 5/12/20. It refused. (p. 625) Under color of law, its Answer urged the Ninth Circuit to interpret Judge Anello’s injunction, which pertains only to the policy, to “cover” the settlement. (p. 633-34) The Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed Anello’s dismissal without prejudice. (p. 640)

Attorney Rosen alleges this ongoing, chilling, extrinsic fraud, insurance bad faith, elder abuse and family financial exploitation has destroyed his marriage, his family, and his emotional well‐being. (p. 646) Hoping it’d save him, he threw us under the bus. (p. 642) He lied. (p. 650)

E. The Pending Liquidation of UCIC.

The settlement now interferes with Ms. Bernier’s claim no. 964.02. In the settlement, Travelers admits that it “realize[s] and understand[s]” the “risk of future claims.” (p. 4) Judge Nevitt had failed to determine what happened. Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case of the Construction Case was the only opportunity to evaluate “the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and the strength of [Ms. Bernier’s] defenses with respect thereto.” (p. 2) California Civil Code § 1668 states that “[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Civil Code § 1598 states that “[w]here a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful,… the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1550 states that “[a] lawful object” is essential to the existence of a contract. Although the settlement between Travelers and Jessie has always been void, we claim its promissory benefits as its involuntary third party beneficiaries.

As a direct result of the settlement, the Receiver finds “Ms. Bernier is bound by Judge Nevitt’s factual findings and legal conclusions.” Judge Nevitt’s only conclusive factual finding is that Jessie and Ms. Bernier had both provided false testimony. It was not favorable to either party (p. 662) and it was the only basis for Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case [protected].

Judge Nevitt overruled Ms. Bernier’s objection. He found that “[i]n light of the Court’s findings in its Statement of Decision, ... the Court need not specifically address the issues identified by Ms. Bernier.” (p. 142) Attorney Kinsey served the Notice of Appeal, but failed to file it. There’s nothing in the record of the Construction Case to explain the credibility issues on which that judgment is based, other than the baseless order dated 10/16/07 which is unresolved criminal fraud. Judge So’s order to strike compounded that fraud by keeping her in the dark.

Travelers is homeowner’s insurance. UCIC is construction liability insurance. Travelers’ UMZ7908 Claim Notes establish substantial damages to her real property and that Travelers had contacted UCIC in 2007. Travelers and UCIC owe a fiduciary duty to Ms. Bernier not to Jessie.

The Receiver’s Determination is based on Judge Nevitt’s judgment being valid and final. However, Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case constituted a collateral attack on Judge Nevitt’s judgment. Travelers “settled” it in order to conflate the inequities of that judgment. “A valid, final judgment is not subject to collateral attack.” Kachig v. Boothe, 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 636 (1971); Miller v. City of Bakersfield, 256 CalApp.2d 820, 823 [An action for damages for malicious prosecution or fraud constitutes a collateral attack on the underlying judgments.]

UCIC’s attorneys worked closely with attorney Howe to collaterally attack Judge Nevitt’s judgment. (p. 654) UCIC’s attorneys defended Ms. Bernier’s collateral attack of that same judgment and interfered with her bankruptcy. The Receiver, in UCIC’s shoes, deems both collateral attacks to be extraneous to the pertinent facts he concludes are established by that same invalid judgment. (p. 32) UCIC and Travelers breached their fiduciary duties as evinced by 1. UCIC’s settlement in Jessie’s Coverage Case 2009‐98526 and 2. Travelers’ settlement in Jessie’s Malicious Prosecution Case 2011‐91919. Each settlement was based on the Construction Case.

Malicious prosecution is most difficult to prove. It’s a subjective, state-of-mind, quasi-criminal offense. Litigants “have the right to present issues that are arguably correct even if it is extremely unlikely” they’ll win. Downey, supra, p. 494. Judge Nevitt’s failure depended entirely on the unresolved baseless order. Jessie’s first Malicious Prosecution Case depended entirely on a resolution of that failure in the Construction Case. Travelers’ void settlement has obscured that resolution ever since 12/24/12. Ms. Bernier has satisfied all elements of equitable tolling since 12/24/12. The defense of laches is unavailable. Travelers has had unclean hands since 8/26/07.

Travelers cannot conspire with Jessie and attorneys Dearn and Freedman to dismiss each of Ms. Bernier’s efforts to ferret out the truth in the Construction Case by relying on the same baseless order that Jessie is suspected of having tricked a Presiding Judge into signing and claim laches as this saga continues. The baseless order is subject to the continuing violations doctrine.

We recommend that Travelers’ Consumer Affairs have this complaint reviewed de-novo by an attorney not related to any previous law firm which Travelers has used in the past, as identified in Dearn and Freedman’s emails. (Ex. 14 and 17) We are trying to help Travelers help us end this nightmare before it impacts UCIC’s liquidation any further. UCIC’s liquidation Receiver has graciously afforded us more time to find an attorney, but the facts, as established herein, demonstrate the daunting challenge that Travelers is causing us with its void settlement.

Travelers mishandled claim no UMZ7908. With it settlement, Travelers then encouraged Jessie to file a frivolous malicious prosecution claim against attorney Rosen. The baseless order, Judge Nevitt’ judgment, and Travelers’ illegal settlement now expose us to monetary damages in our claim in the liquidation of UCIC. The records of all related cases clearly demonstrate that the baseless order is fueling this continuing unresolved criminal violation. The motive is money. The elder victim is sentenced to ridicule and death in a dilapidated unsafe home insured by Travelers.

In its Answer to our complaint to the CDI, Travelers claimed that it had the right to settle “any claim or suit that [Travelers] decide[s] is appropriate.” (p. 17) Due to Insurance Code § 533, this clause of the policy never applied in California. Downey, supra, p. 511. Nevertheless, as a result of Judge Nevitt’s failure and Travelers’ settlement, the reason why Travelers decided it was appropriate to “settle” is now a pivotal factor in claim no. 964.02 in UCIC’s liquidation.

Travelers must pay us an attorney to fix this mess. We do not want to disturb the other UCIC claimants. However, we cannot allow the Receiver to turn Judge Nevitt’s failure into a judgment that’s favorable to Jessie. Two Judges, both Nevitt and Oberholtzer, found Jessie to be a liar with respect to the facts of the Construction Case. (See the judgment in case no. 37-2008-[protected]-CU-BC-CTL, Court’s ROA, online). Jessie relied on Judge So’s baseless order against Hans. (p. 667) Travelers and UCIC encouraged Jessie to profit over $1,800,000. Travelers and UCIC breached their fiduciary duties and prevented Ms. Bernier from redressing her grievances.