what Farmers Insurance group has done to us

On October 12, 2008 our garage burned to the ground. We have had Farmers Homeowners insurance for ten years. The adjuster has been so very rude, nasty and just evil. Her boss is even more of a fibber than she is. Seven months later we are still looking at the burned garage and all that was in it. We live in North Idaho and our garage is where we stored everything. Two 4 Wheelers, go/cart, kayak, skis, boot, poles, exercise equipment, bikes, holiday decorations, you get my drift. We have had three interviews, two tapped, one with a court appointed recorder. A very rude young attorney working for Farmers. We had to hire an Attorney. Farmers attorney wanted to meet us at a motel for the so called interview. (like DUH we aren't that dumb) My husband and I are disabled! During the winter we had to hire a back hoe to get the snow out of the yard and drive (110 inches). We lost all our snow removel equipment. Now we are facing the Spring without tools to clean up the yard and garden area. Farmers Insurance really does SUCK!!! Where is all that money going that we have paid into for ten years? Why are they putting us through this hell? I wish I could tell the world how horrible Farmer is, would they listen? They reinstalled our insurance, even though our credit is poor. Who's isn't right now. After paying folks to help us all winter and buying new snow removel equipment, it broke our bank account. Did I mention our home lost French Doors, three windows. When the temp was 28 below, farmers told us we were in no danger. Our home never did warm up. I put up plastic and quilts to try to keep it warm. now that the snow has melted we are again looking at a huge mess. Never
ending. 7 months folks, glad it wasn't our home that burned. Make sure you take pictures of everything in your home or garage, keep all receits (sp) for three years. Take pictures before and after the fire. Keep all records of times and when you spoke with an agent. Don't allow them to get away with the false security. They are not a nice company--run don't walk to another Insurance Company before it is too late. We have to endure Farmers for another year, due to the large claim. Believe me I will cancel them as quickly as possible.

Emily Kuzmich
Sandpoint, Idaho

Catastrophic Injury Is a Crime in California!
Zürich Financial Services owns Farmers Insurance of California. Counsel for the insurance carrier, Farmers Insurance of California/Truck Insurance Exchange, Simi Valley, asserts,

"Perhaps it is best for the both of us to just have Judge P. review everything and issue
a determination on whether my client [insurance carrier] or the applicant [Charles]
controls the course of medical treatment/nursing."

In reality, whoever controls the course of medical treatment/nursing of Charles Abernathy, a citizen of Oregon and a ventilator-dependent paralyzed quadriplegic as a result of a work-related C2/C3 spinal cord injury in 1981, controls every aspect of his life. Whoever controls the health care of Charles is able to decide:

When, where, and what Charles eats;
What Charles wears;
When Charles goes to sleep and when he wakes up;
Whether he goes to church or not (article 1, section 4 of the California Constitution);
Who invades his body and with what;
Who he talks to on the phone;
Whether or not he sleeps with his wife;
What his form of entertainment will be;
Who will come into his home to provide care or visit; among others.

The catastrophic injured are dependent upon others to provide them with care. This implies giving consent for the invasive actions and nature of the medical situation. By the above statement, the insurance carrier is claiming control of the personal rights of Charles Abernathy under California workers compensation laws. Personal rights are the rights of a person over their own body. Associated rights include the right to protect and safeguard the body or person, a woman's right to her body, and the privacy of personal noncriminal actions.

With a work-related catastrophic injury, Charles has fewer rights than those who are slaves, under involuntary servitude, prisoners, prisoners of war, indentured servants, peonage, serfs, and vassals. Slaves can run away; Charles cannot run away from his physical condition. Involuntary servitude is the compulsion to act against one's will in the form of labor for another; Charles has spent hours having to justify in writing every decision in every aspect of his life. Prisoners have been convicted of a crime within due process of law; Charles committed no crime, he just got catastrophically injured. Prisoners of war have the right to their own bodies; the insurance carrier wants to control every aspect of Charles' body. Peonage is being forced to labor for an indefinite time to pay off a debt or obligation; Charles has no debt to the insurance carrier. A serf was bound to the land and free to act as they desired in their daily life; Charles is unable to act as he desires in his daily life. In medieval times, a vassal was a person or nation who by means of a legal agreement voluntarily allowed themselves to be dominated by another; it was Charles' unplanned work-related injury and not his volition or overt agreement which places him in the position of being dominated.

Therefore, the insurance carrier is declaring catastrophic injury as an excuse for them to violate seven sections of article 1 of the California Constitution. Article 1, section 1 states "enjoying and defending life and liberty, pursuing and obtaining, safety, happiness, and privacy." Section 3 states "the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances." Section 4 states "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed." Section 6 states "slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime." Section 7 states "a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of laws." Section 9 states "a bill of attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed." Section 20 of article 1 of the California Constitution states "noncitizens have the same property rights as citizens."

Evidence since August, 2007:
The insurance carrier controls his enjoyment of life, liberty, happiness, and privacy (article 1, section 1);
A state Representative and the consumer protection division of the insurance commission within Oregon have said they have no jurisdiction over this situation;
Charles has been ignored by national Senators and Representatives from both Oregon and California;
2 lawyers, 2 nurse case managers, 2 doctors, an accounting firm, a claims representative from the insurance carrier, and a judge are all making decisions without talking to Charles;
Charles has no doctor/patient privacy, all medical reports must be reported to the insurance carrier;
Charles was legally required to attend doctors appointments for which he had no say as to date/time;
Charles was legally required to submit to 2 nonemergency ambulance trips to 2 medical examinations;
Charles was legally required to compile and submit years of e-mails and letters all without compensation;
The caregivers of Charles have been forced to endure slander, lies, and threats;
The caregivers of Charles live and work in Oregon, but the insurance carrier wants Medi-Cal pay their salaries;
When the insurance carrier failed to act after two months notice, Charles entered into a contractual agreement which the insurance carrier refuses to honor;
The insurance carrier has failed to reimburse for medical treatment by a nurse practitioner;
A judge recently declared Charles as being competent, because of his injury, it was even questioned;
After 16 years of paying bills, the insurance carrier has declined payments due to "billing inappropriately";
The insurance carrier has refused to pay for a bookkeeper and for his Workers Compensation attorney;
The state of California has determined Medicare is the standard for medical reimbursements;
Charles does not fit the Medicare mold or model of post-acute care;
Charles has unskilled workers (trained and supervised by an R.N., FNP) doing skilled nursing tasks;
California Labor Code, §3209.3 says Charles must have a "licensed by California" physician, Charles lives in Oregon;
Every doctor Charles has seen by order of the insurance carrier has been in Portland, Charles lives in Salem (55 miles);
The insurance carrier has failed to advise Charles of his rights and responsibilities under workers compensation laws;
The insurance carrier has attempted to replace Charles' caregivers with a home health agency;
The insurance career attempted to force Charles, at the age of 27, into a a nursing home in 1982, now they're trying to force him to hire a home health agency;

An open letter to whom it may concern,

Charles Abernathy
Salem, Oregon
Wheelsojoy@aol.com