DOC 810 - Trial Transcript - Day 7 - Walker v LSW - 260p

  • JOYCE WALKER (Continued) 13 39
  • ELIZABETH MACGOWAN 145
  • Exhibit 48 -  Joyce Walker - October 3, 2007 illustration
  • Exhibit 94 - first annual statement you got for your LSW policy
  • Exhibit 668 - letter from Christine Wilton, the lawyer Department of Insurance - California
  • Exhibit 670 - the response from LSW denying your request for refund of your premiums
  • Exhibit 673 - letter that you sent to Ms. Juge (2009 05) -  (financial history)
  • Exhibit 675 - question that you posted on the site allexperts.com? (Mr. Willard Brumbaugh)
  • Exhibit 676 - receipt you received for the policy
  • Exhibit 723 - letter to Brumbraugh
  • Exhibit 732 - Walker email to Brumbaugh
  • Exhibit 743 - an e-mail that came Mr. Turek
  • Exhibit 744  - as an e-mail that you sent to someone in Mr. Botkin's office with questions for Michael?
  • Exhibit 772 - 
  • Exhibit 781 - 2009 06 - your letter to Ms. Convery of LSW
  • Exhibit 784 - Joyce Walker - application for the SecurePlus Provider policy
  • Exhibit 860 - optional report
  • Exhibit 867 - Letter - Marta Wood of Mr. Stemler's office wrote to you on January 27, 2009
  • Exhibit 877 - Walker's first life insurance premium check - Goddess (p100)
  • 934 - it says Exhibit B. - 934-0004. policy purchased

Joyce Walker (Plaintiff)

(p20) - Melody Juge

(p21) - allexperts.com

(p10)

  • >NAIC, intent, expert witnesses, lsw,
  • MR. MARTENS: I think the Court knew why I was asking a number of the questions that I was asking Dr. Brockett in terms of how he was determining consumer expectations.

(p15)

Q Ms. Walker, when did you receive a copy of your policy?
A In January, January 11th, 2008.
Q And who delivered it to you?
A Jeffrey Stemler.
Q And what other materials did he give you?
A I got the policy, a batch illustration, and a buyer's guide.
Q Did Mr. Stemler review the policy with you?
A No, he did not.
Q Did he review the buyer's guides with you?
A No, he did not.

(p16)

Q And at the time that you signed the illustration, did
you look at it?
A No, I did not.
Q And why not?
A I just assumed it was the same illustration that I had
been seeing repeatedly, dated October 3, 2007. I just
thought it was the same. I assumed it was the same.
Q Do you know now whether the illustration you signed in January of 2008 was the same or different from your
October 3, 2007, illustration?
A It was different.
Q How different?
A It showed no annual income coming out at all, and it
showed maximum funding of the policy.

(p17)

Q Okay. And at your deposition in this case, did you know that batch illustrations show the maximum amount of funding allowed?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you also learn that after your deposition?
A Correct.
Q And at your deposition in this case, did you know that batch illustrations do not show any income going to the policyholder?

A At my deposition I did not, but after my deposition, yes.

  • (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.