Walker vs. LSW - Wishlist
- Declarations
- Depositions
- Exhibits
- DOC 820 - Defense Exhibit 774 (Wishlist)
- DOC 809 - Exhibit 632 (Bucket)
- Expert Witness Reports
- Consumer Survey Expert
- DOC 810 - Trial Transcript - Day 7 - Walker vs. LSW - 260p
- (p27-30) - Q And did you end up sending the letter to the California Department of Insurance?
- (p28) - Q Would you take a look at Exhibit 733. Is that one of the e-mail exchanges you had with Ms. Wilton at the Department of Insurance?
- (p29) - Q And is Exhibit 668 that letter?
-
- DOC 810 - Trial Transcript - Day 7 - Walker vs. LSW - 260p
- (p27-30) - Q And did you end up sending the letter to the California Department of Insurance?
A Yes.
Q And did you at any point after the complaint was filed with the Department of Insurance have contact with anyone at the department with respect to your complaint?
A Yes. Christine Wilton.
Q And did you exchange e-mails with Ms. Wilton during the process of her investigation?
- (p28) - A Yes.
Q Would you take a look at Exhibit 733. Is that one of the e-mail exchanges you had with Ms. Wilton at the Department of Insurance?
A Yes, it is.
Q And had you had a number of communications with Ms. Wilton prior to the January 21, 2010, e-mail, Exhibit 733?
A Yes.
Q And to your knowledge had Mr. Burgess also spoken with her a number of times?
A Yes.
Q And Ms. Wilton, was she a lawyer with the Department of Insurance?
A Yes, sir.
Q Reading from your e-mail, 733: Thanks again for staying with me on this LSW policy. Sounds like you might have found an omission that just might work in my favor in terms of getting all my money back. The lack of stated reason for an amount percentage of fees taken out every month could be the loophole I need. What did you understand about the omission she may have found with respect to the fees?
A I understood that it had to do with something with the fee structure.
- (p29) - Q And what did you mean when you said the omission about fees could be the loophole that you needed?
A Well, like you said, Christine is a lawyer. Her area of expertise is insurance law. She indicated that there was an omission --
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, Your Honor. Nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained. This part of the answer will be stricken.
BY MR. FREIBERG:
Q What did you understand from what she said?
A I understood that there was a possibility and that I was encouraged that she had found something that I might be able to use against the defense that LSW was saying I signed my contract and I had no other recourse.
Q Did the Department of Insurance ultimately take any action with respect to your complaint?
A No, they did not.
Q Did you receive a letter to that effect?
A Yes, I did.
Q And is Exhibit 668 that letter?
A Yes, it is.
Q And that letter is from Christine Wilton, the lawyer with whom you had been communicating at the Department of Insurance?
- (p30) - A Correct.
Q In this letter does Ms. Wilton tell you the following: As a regulatory agency, the Department of Insurance does not have the authority to resolve complaints where the allegations are based upon undocumented conversations. This department may not be your final resource. You may wish to seek the advice of an attorney or pursue the matter in Small Claims Court. I regret the department was unable to assist you. Thank you for contacting us with your concerns. Is that what you received?
A Yes.
Q Did you speak with Ms. Wilton after you received this letter?
A I did.
Q What did she say?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, Your Honor. Calls for hearsay.
MR. FREIBERG: Same, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Not for the truth.
THE WITNESS: We had some discussion and ultimately she recommended that I have a forensic analysis done on this policy.
BY MR. FREIBERG:
Q What did you understand a forensic analysis meant?
A That there might be something more to it that she had yet to discover as well.