BUENSUCESO INFORMING US, SCHLICK WILL BE THE NEW ADJUSTER
(without any endorsement)
claim # 0291168417
Inbox | x |
| 7/26/13  | | ||
I will be the new adjuster handling the claim for your accident. It was transferred to me as I understand you were struck by another vehicle that fled the scene and they were responsible for the accident. Please contact me at the number below so we can further discuss your claim.
Thank you,
Mark Schlick
Claims Service Adjuster
Allstate Insurance Company
PO BOX 289001
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198
Phone 858-451-8084
Fax 877-649-1639
| 7/26/13 | | ||
Dear Mark,
May I request that Ms Kathy Garcia, first, introduced you to me, so that I know what are the information and fact that were already accepted as confirmed from those which needed to be confirmed. It is hard for me to talk to Kathy for several days then tomorrow another claim adjuster will just appear without any endorsement and talking of an information entirely different from what was already established. What I have discussed with Ms. Kathy Garcia from the
e-mail I sent to her dated July 13, 2013, where I wrote the next paragraph shown below:
" On the other hand, if the fabricated statement from the concerned officer where he stated that the front of V2 collided with the right rear of V1 before V1 came to rest after rotating then the more V2 should have missed the right side of V1 because the impact would push V1 moved farther away. Besides, please take a closer look again at V1 rear right side and V1 right side did you see any indication that V2 front intimately kissed V1 from its rear right to the right side, showing traces of damage from a rotary motion ? None. Hence, the more credible scenario was the eyewitness account by Party 2 that the area where V2 collided with V1 at the end of the spinning motion of V1 is on the right side of V1 and absolutely not on the rear side of V1 as contemplated on by the concerned officer. But who must have caused the massive damage on the rear right side of V1. Could there be a another mystery car, V3, involved who hit V1 from behind? If there was then, how could this mystery car V3 ever hit V1 rear right side without having seen by Party 2 ? Party 2 on her statement never stated nor alluded existence of V3 . Hence, V2 must have been the culprit. Let us examine the damage incurred by V2 and compare it with V1 by examining the sketches provided by the concerned officer.
I believe with these sketches you know did change lane and did it unsafely then lied ."
From this e-mail I wrote that if there was another vehicle I named mystery vehicle V3 involve which hit V1 on the rear right side, this V3 should have been seen by Party 2, as Party 2 had been observing V1 in a distance in front of Party 2, when V1 started swerving to the left then to the right, then rotated . Since, Party 2 never mentioned in her statement that a third vehicle hit V1, hence, I concluded that Party 2 must have been the culprit. This could be verified by the damage incurred by V2 on its front right portion and the massive rear right portion of V1. From this damage from V1 and V2 it can be seen that when V1 was about to change lanes to the right, Party 2 moved the lane to her left while V1 was still occupying the mentioned left lane hitting V1 on its rear right section.
With this clarification, I reiterate there was no third vehicle involve, as shown from the statements of Party 1, Party 2, and the concerned police officer and the damages seen on V1 and V2. I wanted to point out that Party 2 cannot at this time allege the existence of the third vehicle because she should have obviously seen it and should have mentioned it her statement.
Again, may I respectfully request that you be formally introduced to me by Ms. Kathy Garcia.
Thank you very much.
Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso
