The U-Haul accident occurred on 12/8/01; I benefitted from physical therapy--the Kenai Frontier Physical Therapy office is excellent: When I discovered that U-Haul hadn't paid the bills it had said it would pay, I started looking for a lawyer (but have given up since none are interested).
About a month ago--after nearly a year of asking--the AK Division of Insurance gave me a copy of U-Haul's claim file--and I discovered the abuse of my medical records ... I have neither Christopher Reeves' problems--I cheered when I read about his defying medical expectations-- nor his resources. I do know that last year I lost about 2 weeks (24-7) to U-Haul's accident--and that I will run again.
DATE: March 27, 2003
TO: Mr. Gregg D. Renkes, Alaska Attorney General,
1031 W. 4th Ave. #200,
Anchorage, AK 99501
FROM: Dr. Claudia Krenz,
Box 7050,
Nikiski, AK 99635
I write to question the legality of U-Haul operating within the State of Alaska. Last May, I filed a consumer complaint--filled with naive statements like "I don't have a lawyer; I don't want a lawyer; do I need a lawyer?"--with the AK Division of Insurance: on 12/8/01--helping a former neighbor move from Kasilof to Kenai, a passenger wearing my seatbelt--I was injured when the U-Haul truck she was driving hit a guardrail on K-Beach Road. I complained that I wasn't being reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses and time (I do believe there is a random element in all life, for good and ill, and that the accident did not stem from maliciousness). The Division concluded U-Haul was behaving legally. Shortly after this determination, on 5/13/02, I discovered that U-Haul had not been reimbursing my health care providers for the treatment it had told me it would pay for and authorized, i.e., provided billing numbers and the like. At that point I began looking for a lawyer.
I asked for a copy of the Division's file (02-00194JR)--on the phone, in email, in certified letters (see attached). A few weeks ago--nearly a year later--during which U-Haul's stock price plummeted 70% and the SEC began investigating it [Reuters now mentions bankruptcy]--the Division sent me a copy of its file. Other than that delay, the Division has been very helpful: I understand that I'm a "3rd party claimant"--my former neighbor had taken out U-Haul's "safemove" policy--and that AK law only requires that U-Haul respond to the Division's queries in a timely manner and defend its driver, its lessee, whom U-Haul faulted for the accident, from me. I've consulted many lawyers, but none are interested, perhaps because of U-Haul's deepening financial crisis, perhaps because too little money is involved, some no doubt because they're busy.
My question about the legality of U-Haul operating within the state is based on reading its claim file: 1) Given that it's supposed to defend its lessee, wouldn't you say that it abrogated that responsibility by providing me her SSN, last 5 addresses, a detailed description of the brain injury that put her on Medicaid--I knew the latter; I'm guessing it's because of the former, which I hadn't know--and that she has an unrestricted CA driver license?
2) U-Haul made its one and only payment to my health care providers on February 11th, 2002--but continued receiving copies of my medical records between then and May 13th: it authorized additional treatment during this period, distributed my medical records and discussed them with external parties (see attached letter). StateFarm reviewed the same records, paid out 10k under my personal auto insurance, and has sent U-Haul a notice of its intent to be reimbursed.
There are many inaccuracies and anomalies in U-Haul's claim file--like determining that the truck's brakes were "not defective" before it had been inspected [what does "put this under wins" mean?]--but my two reasons for questioning the legality of U-Haul's operating in AK are: 1) it provided me with detailed personal information about its lessee, the person it's supposed to defend and 2) it fraudulently obtained copies of my medical records--discussing and distributing them--without a legitimate reason for doing so. If U-Haul is operating legally within AK, then a P.O.W. has rights greater, under the Geneva Convention, than I, a state citizen, a "3rd party claimant." I do not think it right that my medical records be used for some claims adjuster's titillation.
Finally, after receiving StateFarm's letter of intent, U-Haul did send me a token--less than my expenses and nothing for my time--settlement offer, which concluded with: "For your protection, Alaska law requires the following statement: 'Any person who knowingly and with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive an insurance company files a claim containing false incomplete, or misleading information may be prosecuted under state law.'" How does 'state law' address an outside insurance company whose intent is to 'injure, defraud, and deceive' an Alaska citizen? Reading U-Haul's claim file illuminates how naive I have been, e.g., I'd thought "law" meant "Constitution." To be reimbursed for time-in-treatment and prescription costs--both easy to document--I'll have to sue U-Haul myself (it can't be worse than a dissertation); I'll stipulate that 'pain and suffering' monies, whatever a jury decides, go directly to the peninsula battered women's shelter--although the preceding is not about domestic violence, it is about power and the abuse thereof. Since a jury won't find me guilty of helping someone move, U-Haul can pay court costs. Why c.c. U-Haul's creditors? Because I wish to attest, publicly--without violating ICANN's Policy 4(a)(ii)--to what their standstill agreements have made possible--and how U-Haul is restructuring its debt.
cc: Royal Bank of Canada, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Citibank USA,* Citicorp USA, KBC Bank NV, LaSalle Bank National Network, Fleet Nation Bank, Wells Fargo Bank NA, Bank One NV, Bank of America NA, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
--
*Citibank returned the copy I sent: I think it had to make up a
form to fill in to do so.