FACTS
The Facts of the Incident , Proof of Bad Faith and Criminal Actions of Abdelhalim
Last updated
The Facts of the Incident , Proof of Bad Faith and Criminal Actions of Abdelhalim
Last updated
LISTEN TO THE AUDIO OF THE FACTS
Fact #1: The defendant operated as a businessman under the name “Sonoma Liquor.” Business License Documentation shows the defendant doing business as “Sonoma Liquor” in San Francisco; local regulatory filings and Secretary of State DBA forms confirm the legal business use of that name, and public photographic evidence of the storefront or signage clearly identifies “Sonoma Liquor” as the trade name. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #2: The defendant operated a liquor store in San Francisco, California. Operating Business License and Utility Bills list the store’s address, confirming its operation in San Francisco; the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License in the defendant’s name verifies the liquor store permit; and public photographs of the premises and displayed permits corroborate the operation. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #3: The defendant’s place of business is covered by a Liberty Mutual insurance policy. The Declarations Page and Policy Documents from Liberty Mutual explicitly list the liquor store address or name the business as insured; correspondence from the insurance agent verifies the policy coverage; and the mandatory Certificates of Insurance required for commercial liquor store operations are on file with the authorities. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #4: The defendant’s commercial vehicle used for business is covered by AAA insurance. The Auto Insurance Policy from AAA (CSAA) designates the vehicle for commercial purposes; the VIN number and documented operational usage indicate that the vehicle is classified for business, regardless of any claim that it is personal; and Vehicle Registration records along with policy endorsements confirm its commercial coverage. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #5: On February 4, 2021, the defendant, acting as the driver, struck the plaintiff while the plaintiff was in a public crosswalk. The Police Report confirms the date, location, and parties involved; eyewitness statements by Dustin Rosemond and subsequent depositions verify that the plaintiff was in the crosswalk; and Certified official SFPD Body Camera Footage document the eyewitness statement regarding the collision. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #6: The driver–defendant failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiff and struck the plaintiff from behind with his commercial cargo van. Witness testimonies state that the plaintiff was ahead while the defendant’s van approached from behind; standard anatomical forensics and the official medical examination at SF General Hospital Emergency Room confirm that the bodily impact and the estimated vehicle velocity required to cause such injuries could only be produced by a vehicle; and photographs of the vehicle, along with evidence of leather polish transfer from the victim’s leather jacket to the vehicle, are consistent with the defendant’s confession, the victim’s account, and that of the eyewitness. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #7: The defendant notified the police that he was operating as an employee of his retail liquor store located on Sixth and Jesse Streets in San Francisco, California. Police bodycam footage logs record the defendant stating his employment at the SONOMA LIQUOR store; his recorded statement acknowledges his employment status and the store’s location; and employer tax and payroll records link the defendant to that retail establishment. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #8: The defendant’s commercial van is a Ford Transit 250, equipped with commercial storage and a loading cage, and is classified as a commercial vehicle. DMV Vehicle Registration Records list the van as a Ford Transit 250 with commercial plates; manufacturer documents confirm that the van has cargo modifications, including a loading cage and no rear passenger seats; and the defendant’s use of the vehicle, along with its consistent parking in a commercial loading zone in front of his retail store, validates the vehicle’s functional and actual commercial status despite any claim that it is personal. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #9: Vehicles of this type are used for commercial purposes; the defendant’s claim that it is a personal vehicle is inaccurate because the van is regularly parked in front of his retail store. Photographic and surveillance evidence show the van parked outside the business on a regular schedule; signage and branding on the van indicate its commercial use; and DMV and employer documents contradict any claim of personal use only. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #10: The defendant maintains a handicap sign on his vehicle and parks it in a clearly marked commercial loading zone with yellow markings in front of his business. Photos and video evidence show the van parked in the loading zone with a handicap placard displayed; parking enforcement citations and logs document parking in a commercial loading area; and witness affidavits from local merchants or pedestrians confirm the van’s location. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #11: The defendant uses the vehicle to deliver and pick up materials and products sold at his place of business. Invoices and receipts directly tie inventory deliveries to that vehicle; public photos and local security surveillance camera footage show the vehicle being used to load and unload products into the SONOMA LIQUOR retail store; and a deposition of the defendant confirms that the vehicle is used for store supply runs. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #12: After the incident, the defendant now claims the vehicle is used for personal purposes. Deposition transcripts and recorded statements document the defendant’s claim of personal use; contradictory insurance documents classify the vehicle as commercial, impeaching his statements; and cross-examination highlights inconsistencies between his sworn testimony and the documentary evidence. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #13: The defendant driver struck the plaintiff while the plaintiff was walking as a pedestrian in a crosswalk on Fifth Street and Tehama at 2:35 p.m. on February 4, 2021. The Police Report indicates the location (Fifth & Tehama) and includes a timestamp of 2:35 p.m.; surveillance footage from nearby businesses or traffic cameras captures the incident; and emergency services logs verify the 911 calls and corresponding arrival times. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #14: After striking the plaintiff with his commercial cargo van at speeds close to 20 mph, the defendant fled the scene by moving his vehicle at least 100 feet from the point of impact. Witness statements confirm that the defendant drove further down the block after the collision; video bodycam footage and photographs by the plaintiff and police corroborate the measurements and accident reconstruction estimates that place the van’s final position about 100 feet away; and additional video footage documents the defendant’s attempt to conceal the vehicle based on its distance from the victim. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #15: The defendant left the plaintiff on the street without providing assistance. Eyewitness testimony confirms that the defendant did not remain to render aid; police and EMT reports indicate that the driver had already left upon their arrival; and a second 911 call audio recording references the plaintiff lying injured with no immediate help from the driver. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #16: After fleeing the scene, the defendant did not return or offer immediate help, as required under the California Vehicle Code. The applicable sections of the California Vehicle Code (e.g., § 20001 or 20002) require drivers to remain at the scene of a collision; both the plaintiff’s and eyewitness statements clearly state that there is no record of the defendant offering assistance before fleeing; and the defendant’s own statements contradict any claim that he returned. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #17: A passing driver, arriving immediately after the defendant fled, made a 911 call reporting that the plaintiff was found lying on the ground without assistance, in violation of the California Vehicle Code. 911 audio recordings and transcripts document the caller’s description of the plaintiff’s condition and the absence of the at-fault vehicle; timestamped cell phone records from the caller are on file; and eyewitness as well as victim statements corroborate that the defendant had left the plaintiff alone and injured. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #18: The 911 caller explicitly stated that they had passed the scene minutes earlier and were now reporting what they had seen, indicating a clear time gap between the collision and the call. A detailed 911 transcript verifies the timing and the caller’s statement regarding having passed the scene at an earlier time; call-log printouts from dispatch with exact times support that the caller observed the absence of an at-fault vehicle. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #19: The time between the caller’s observation and the 911 call shows that the caller, after retrieving their phone, dialed 911 and reached the service approximately 30 seconds after the defendant had returned and called 911. The caller’s deposition clarifies the timeline from observing the collision to placing the call; phone records with timestamps confirm that the call was made 30 seconds after the van left. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #20: An eyewitness, Dustin Rosemond, directly observed the collision. An eyewitness affidavit or deposition by Mr. Rosemond describes the collision in detail; contact information and interview notes from Dustin verify his observation of the van striking the plaintiff; and police interview video body camera statements reference Rosemond’s immediate account. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #21: The eyewitness reported to the police that he saw the defendant strike the plaintiff with his vehicle. The official police body cameras include Rosemond’s recorded verbal statement; bodycam footage captures Rosemond’s statement onsite, clearly pointing out the driver and victim; and a certified body camera recording reaffirms his account. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #22: Both the 911 call from the witness who observed the hit-and-run and the eyewitness’s statements recorded on police bodycam footage are preserved in the public record by emergency services and the San Francisco Police Department. SFPD evidence inventory logs reference the bodycam footage; a public records request (FOIA/CPRA) produced audio and video of the 911 call; and dispatch logs along with internal record indexes confirm that these statements were preserved. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #23: These recordings have been made available to the defense, specifically to Liberty Mutual and AAA Insurance, who now conveniently claim no knowledge of the record despite being obligated to investigate. Discovery correspondence shows that both insurers acknowledged completing a thorough investigation; proof of requests from the defense counsel PSA Law confirms the receipt of the video containing the eyewitness Dustin Rosemund statement to defendants fault; the insurer was aware of the 911 confession and eyewitness account since 2021; and metadata plus email trails document that the defense had timely access while the insurer failed to offer a settlement in good faith once the evidence of the defendant driver’s admission was known, constituting bad faith fraud against the victim. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #24: The defense, Liberty Mutual, and AAA Insurance had a duty to investigate the circumstances of the collision, including any criminal activity by their insured. Insurance policy language mandates a thorough investigation of claims and collisions; relevant insurance regulations under the California Insurance Code require a good-faith investigation; and communications from the insurers confirm that an investigation was conducted, though no mention was made to the plaintiff of the confession or hit-and-run witness. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #25: Both Liberty Mutual and AAA failed in their duty to investigate, either through deliberate omission or gross negligence. Claims handling guidelines from each insurer outline required steps that were not followed; internal memos and emails show that the insurers had knowledge of the collision without subsequent follow-up; and depositions of claims adjusters clarify the discrepancy between the actions taken and what was required. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #26: Despite overwhelming evidence, both insurance companies ignored live eyewitness statements, photographic evidence, police bodycam recordings, and the plaintiff’s statements. Timelines show that evidence was provided before the insurers’ denial; the evidence indicates that the insurers’ denial was unlawful and a violation of the law; 911 audio logs and body camera recordings captured the defendant’s confession and admission of liability; the negligent oversight of the police and 911 records, and the subsequent denial by the insurer, was fraudulent; insurance denial letters omit any reference to the significant evidence on record; and internal email strings and adjuster notes demonstrate an intentional denial of the fault and liability statement in the recorded evidence. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #27: The defendant’s 911 call at approximately 2:54 PM—over 10 to 12 minutes after he struck the victim—contains an audio recording with three separate direct admissions (“I hit him”) and one indirect admission of fault when, upon being asked if the driver hit a pedestrian, he replied “Yeah.” Collectively, these statements substantiate a confession to the operator that the defendant did indeed strike the victim with his vehicle. A full audio recording and certified transcript capture these admissions; an audio forensic expert confirms that the voice is the defendant’s; and chain of custody documentation verifies the integrity of the recording. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #28: In the audio recording, the defendant claims he was calling 911 on behalf of the plaintiff. The 911 log and call transcript reference the defendant’s statement that he was calling for the victim; a timestamped recording shows his voice at the moment of the call; and there is no contradictory testimony regarding who called 911. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #29: In the audio recording, the plaintiff declared a message to 911 services and his family, expressing fear of dying on the sidewalk. The 911 audio captures the plaintiff’s voice describing his fear of fatal injury; affidavits and depositions from the 911 operator and paramedics confirm the plaintiff’s statements; and timestamps verify that the call occurred shortly after the collision. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #30: In the audio recording, the plaintiff informed 911 services that the caller, the driver–defendant, had hit him with a vehicle. The 911 transcript and official call notes confirm the plaintiff’s direct statement naming the defendant as the driver; testimony from the 911 operator and first responders verifies the conversation’s content; and corroborating injury evidence matches the plaintiff’s statement regarding the collision. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #31: The plaintiff’s real-time statement during the 911 call constitutes an admissible record under evidence law, preserving a contemporaneous account of the incident. Evidentiary rules under the “excited utterance” or “present sense impression” exceptions to hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1240, 1241) apply; the 911 call recording serves as an official record of the plaintiff’s immediate outcry; and responding EMTs confirm that the plaintiff’s injuries match his statement. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #32: During the 911 call, the defendant clearly admitted fault to the emergency services operator. The transcript captures the defendant stating or implying that he struck the plaintiff; an audio forensic expert confirms the authenticity of the recording; and the operator’s declaration verifies the defendant’s admission. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #33: Based on the defendant’s statements and confession during the 911 call, emergency services—including the fire department, EMTs, and police—were dispatched to the scene at Fifth and Tehama. Dispatch logs from the relevant date and time indicate an immediate response triggered by the confession; fire department run sheets verify the callout reason as stated in the dispatch notes; and the police report references the defendant’s 911 call as the basis for a swift response. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #34: The 911 call establishes a record of both parties’ admissions regarding fault and liability; the driver–defendant states to the operator that he struck the plaintiff, and the plaintiff corroborates this by informing 911 that the caller was the defendant driver. The full 911 recording contains both the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s statements to the 911 operators; the recorded transcript aligns each statement with the respective speaker; and time-synced watermarks confirm that it is a single, unaltered conversation. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #35: The statements by the defendant and the plaintiff at the scene provide substantial evidence establishing causation, fault, and liability on the part of the driver. Accident reconstruction conclusively places the defendant’s vehicle as the direct cause of the injury; a comparative analysis of the defendant’s admission with physical evidence such as skid marks and collision angles supports this finding; and additional witness testimony confirms that both statements align with the actual events. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #36: The driver’s statement to the 911 operator qualifies as an “excited utterance” and is admissible under the hearsay exception. The legal foundation under Evidence Code § 1240 supports the excited utterance exception; the audio recording shows the driver’s emotional state immediately after the collision; and expert or judicial notice confirms the application of this exception. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #37: The victim–plaintiff made a real-time statement to the 911 operator reporting the situation, which is admissible under the hearsay exception. The 911 recording captures the plaintiff’s immediate statement made under stress; an evidentiary code citation for “spontaneous statement” or present sense impression applies; and the dispatcher’s declaration confirms the immediacy and context of the statement. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #38: The 911 call made by the defendant from his cell phone triggered the dispatch of police and emergency services to the scene. Phone records and cellular tower data show an outgoing 911 call from the defendant’s phone; the dispatch timeline confirms that the call initiated the official response; and the defendant’s own admission verifies that he placed the call. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #39: The defendant called 911 only after the plaintiff informed him that images of the incident existed and that the defendant would not escape liability by leaving the victim unattended. The plaintiff’s contemporaneous declaration states that he confronted the defendant regarding the photographic evidence; witness testimony from bystanders confirms the exchange; and phone call records show a delay that supports this sequence of events. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #40: Initially, the defendant refused to call 911 and instead moved his vehicle to conceal his involvement, parking it nearly 100 feet down the street before returning on foot. Surveillance footage and local CCTV capture the defendant relocating the van; eyewitness statements confirm that the defendant resisted immediate calls to dial 911; and onlooker testimony shows that the defendant returned to the scene only after stashing the vehicle. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #41: The defendant attempted to bribe the victim–plaintiff rather than report the collision to the authorities. The plaintiff’s contemporaneous notes or recordings reference the offered bribe; witness corroboration confirms that the defendant attempted to pay off the plaintiff on the spot; and the defendant’s statements are contradicted by the plaintiff’s evidence. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #42: After the driver fled the scene, the victim–plaintiff contacted his family, fearing for his life and uncertain of his exact location, while a passerby reported the collision site to the victim’s family. Phone records show calls made by the victim in distress to family members; family member depositions verify that they received location information from a bystander; and GPS or E911 data links these phone calls to the incident location. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #43: The defendant’s 911 call was the trigger for the dispatch of emergency services, police, and the fire department to the scene. Dispatch protocols establish that an official response is triggered by a 911 call, and records confirm that the defendant’s call initiated the dispatch. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #44: Upon arrival at the scene, police and fire emergency officials began recording evidence and conditions on body cameras. Bodycam footage from responding officers documents the recording of evidence; incident reports reference the time at which evidence collection began; and evidence logs detail the items documented upon arrival. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #45: Police Officer Thompson interviewed eyewitness Dustin Rosemond, who clearly stated that he observed the driver striking the plaintiff. The officer’s official report summarizes Rosemond’s interview; bodycam video captures Rosemond’s statement firsthand; and Rosemond’s deposition corroborates his account as provided to Officer Thompson. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #46: The police did not incorporate the plaintiff’s statements regarding the driver’s fault and failed to record an accurate account of the plaintiff’s claims. Inconsistent police reports omit the plaintiff’s statements; the plaintiff’s written complaints and attempts to correct the record are documented; and bodycam footage shows that the plaintiff’s statement was made but not included in the official narrative. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #47: Instead of accepting the plaintiff’s account, the police misquoted and took his statement out of context, resulting in the victim being cited for a violation despite suffering a life-threatening injury. Discrepancies between the police report and the plaintiff’s known account and injuries are evident; issued citations indicate a misapplication of the facts; and a comparison of the original bodycam or audio with the final police report reveals misquotations. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #48: The police bodycam footage and the 911 record do not show the plaintiff admitting to any violation of the law. Complete bodycam footage for the entire incident confirms the absence of any such admission; 911 call transcripts verify that the plaintiff never confessed to wrongdoing; and audio analysis confirms there are no splices or omissions. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #49: The police records do not include any witness, other than the defendant, claiming that the victim was mounted on a scooter. The police report lists all witness statements, none of which mention a scooter; deposition summaries from each witness confirm that the plaintiff was not on a scooter. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #50: The defense has produced no evidence indicating that a scooter was in use at the time of the collision. Discovery requests and responses do not mention or provide proof of a scooter; cross-examination of the defendant and defense witnesses reveals no tangible evidence supporting the scooter claim. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #51: The evidence shows that the victim–plaintiff was walking with the scooter by his side rather than operating it. Eyewitness observations and the plaintiff’s own statement confirm that the scooter was not in motion; photographic evidence from the scene clarifies the scooter’s stationary position; and forensic analysis indicates there were no skid marks or signs of motor engagement. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #52: Neither the police records nor the defendant have any direct statement from the plaintiff indicating that he was operating a motorized scooter at the time of the collision. Police transcripts and interviews show that the plaintiff did not state he was riding a scooter; comparative testimony from the defendant does not reference a running scooter; and depositions verify that the plaintiff never claimed to be riding a scooter. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #53: The police and the defendant altered the account, including fabricating a false admission by the plaintiff, to fit a narrative that absolves the driver of liability. Original bodycam footage reveals inconsistencies with the final police statements; the plaintiff’s affirmative statements clearly disclaim any acceptance of fault; and witness testimony confirms that the official narrative differs from what was actually said. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #54: A review of the police bodycam recordings confirms that the plaintiff–victim never declared he was operating a motorized scooter at the time of the collision. A comprehensive review of the bodycam footage and transcripts shows no such statement; an officer’s deposition confirms that no such declaration appears in the footage; and the plaintiff’s affirmation accurately describes what was captured on camera. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #55: The police relied on the defendant’s claim regarding the plaintiff’s direction to cite the victim for riding on the wrong side of the street, an accusation that is inaccurate. Citation documents or traffic violation notices reference the “wrong side of the street”; a map or diagram of the intersection shows a crosswalk or pedestrian path that refutes the claim; and officer bodycam footage captures the rationale behind issuing the citation. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #56: The police used the traffic violation as a justification to exonerate the defendant. Official rationale and final report language blame the plaintiff for an improper crossing; dismissal and exoneration documents, along with statements from the investigating officer, reference the alleged violation; and contradictory physical evidence shows that the plaintiff was crossing lawfully. (Score: 3.0)
Fact #57: The defendant capitalized on this narrative by using it to deny any fault or liability during discussions with the officers. Recorded statements and transcripts show the defendant claiming the plaintiff committed a “traffic violation”; officer notes confirm that the defendant’s stance was accepted; and social media or public comments from the defendant assert that he is “not at fault” due to the plaintiff’s violation. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #58: The police officer recorded images of marks on the defendant’s vehicle. Digital photo logs and the officer’s camera memory card data document the marks on the vehicle; evidence tags reference the vehicle damage; and the officer’s testimony confirms that multiple photographs were taken at the scene. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #59: Officer Fernandez’s police report states there were no images of marks on the vehicle, despite bodycam footage clearly showing both the marks and the officer photographing them. Bodycam footage shows Officer Fernandez photographing the vehicle damage; a comparison between the report and the video demonstrates the discrepancy between the claim of “no images” and the actual footage; and cross-examination of Officer Fernandez will address this contradiction or omission against the body camera record. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #60: The bodycam evidence proves that Officer Fernandez omitted crucial information from his report. A detailed timeline comparing the bodycam footage to the final report highlights the omissions; video stills capture details that were not documented in writing; and Officer Fernandez’s deposition or clarifications prove that certain facts were excluded from the official record. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #61: Officer Fernandez omitted eyewitness statements from Dustin Rosemond. Bodycam and police records show that Rosemond’s statement was taken but not included in the official narrative; Rosemond’s recorded statement confirms he provided a statement to Officer Thompson; and certified body camera records indicate that his statement was known but never reported. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #62: Officer Fernandez omitted from his report the fact that a second 911 call was made, during which the defendant was seen fleeing the scene. Secondary 911 call logs reference the defendant’s flight; a comparison of dispatch records with the final police report shows no mention of that call; and witness testimony from the second caller describes the defendant’s flight. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #63: By failing to record or include all pertinent statements and substantive information, Officer Fernandez violated the victim–plaintiff’s constitutional rights and neglected his duty as a police officer. Federal, state, and local laws as well as departmental policies establish how officers must perform thorough and unbiased reporting; these laws and regulations establish the obligation for police officers to record all material information; civil rights precedent confirms that material omissions infringe on the plaintiff’s due process and impede access to justice; and internal affairs records and filed complaints document the incomplete reporting. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #64: Insurance companies are legally obligated to conduct a thorough investigation and cannot rely solely on police reports when determining liability or processing claims. Insurance codes and regulations (e.g., Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03) mandate proper investigation and prohibit unfair claims practices; California state laws require an independent review of statements, including all 911 calls, body camera footage, and witness accounts; and insurance adjusters have a legal duty to investigate beyond merely reviewing police reports. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #65: Insurance companies are required to access all pertinent information, including 911 recordings and police records. Formal request-for-evidence subpoenas from the insurer’s legal counsel confirm that all records were obtained; subpoena correspondence with law enforcement and the insured verifies that 911 recordings and police records were accessed; and regulatory guidance advises insurers to gather all relevant data in bodily injury claims. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #66: Insurance companies are required to conduct an unbiased and fair analysis of the evidence. The California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations provide the legal authority for unbiased analysis; claim file audits must demonstrate that evidence was weighed appropriately; and depositions from claims personnel confirm their statutory obligations to remain impartial. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #67: When an insurance company determines that its insured driver or business owner is at fault, it is obligated to inform the other party and settle the claims or provide compensation for valid third-party claims. The policy handbook describes the standard claims settlement procedure upon acceptance of liability; claim denial letters from the insurer demonstrate a consistent practice of denial despite evidence and the driver’s confession; correspondence and emails with the plaintiff confirm that settlement obligations and liability were denied with no evidence of the investigation materials used beyond an incomplete police record; and the use of only police records by insurance companies violates California Insurance Policy and Laws. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #68: If an insurance company learns that its insured driver or business owner violated the California Vehicle Code or committed another legal breach, the company is required to report the offense to authorities and cannot conceal or deny that fact. California Vehicle Code provisions and the Insurance Code mandate the reporting of certain violations; the insurer’s internal policies and compliance manuals specify the duty to report under specific circumstances; and recorded body camera footage and 911 records show that there was internal knowledge of the wrongdoing by the driver, yet that knowledge was concealed without any steps taken to inform authorities or the plaintiff. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #69: The failure to investigate 911 calls or police records constitutes a deliberate avoidance of liability by the insurance company; willful ignorance is not a valid defense. Case precedents establish that “willful ignorance” is not acceptable in claims handling; regulatory complaints document that insurers have been sanctioned for ignoring known evidence; and subpoena records confirm that the SFPD body camera footage containing the recorded eyewitness statement by Dustin Rosemond, which discloses the defendant's fault in the collision, were retrieved in January of 2024. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #70: Insurance companies use avoidance tactics to evade liability, even when they are aware that their insured customer committed wrongdoing, by failing to disclose such knowledge and thereby avoiding payment of liability claims. Patterns of practice, including prior suits and regulatory orders, document that the insurer employed such tactics; comparative cases show that insurers withheld or downplayed evidence to avoid payouts; and the insurance company’s failure to investigate and admit fault despite the eyewitness record exposes an intentional strategy to withhold or not reveal key evidence. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #71: AAA Insurance and Liberty Mutual, representing the defendant and his business, are fully liable for damages arising from their bad faith investigative practices and fraudulent actions. Bad faith lawsuit precedents have established insurer liability for failing to settle or investigate properly; claims files reveal a deliberate or reckless disregard for available evidence; and legal expert opinions from insurance bad faith specialists support the claim of full liability. (Score: 3.5)
Fact #72: These insurance companies are liable for denying a legitimate claim despite clear evidence of the defendant driver’s fault and liability, including a certified confession and supporting proof. A certified 911 transcript or validation by 911 emergency services confirms the authenticity of the evidence; official denial letters from the insurers document that the claim was denied or neglected and are retained by the plaintiff; and specific insurance code violations are recorded for ignoring conclusive evidence of liability. (Score: 4.0)
Fact #73: In speaking with the police, the defendant asserted that he had valid insurance coverage. Bodycam footage or a police interview recorded the defendant stating, “I have insurance,” while referencing AAA/Liberty Mutual’s intent to cover the victim’s damages; the officer’s body camera verifies the defendant’s conversation about insurance and his intention to cover the costs through insurance; the defendant’s AAA (CSAA) insurance card and policy reference were present at the scene for a 2009 Toyota; and the defendant, in his capacity as an employee of Sonoma Liquor and while operating the commercial Ford Transit van involved in the collision, confirmed his insurance coverage. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #74: The police statement, “That's why you have insurance. Right?” was made to inform the defendant that his insurance should cover the costs and damages suffered by the plaintiff–victim. Certified recorded bodycam footage captures the officer informing the defendant about his insurance liability as an option to cover the victim’s damages; the defendant’s reaction acknowledged his duty and the liability of his insurance to pay for the victim’s damages; and insurance communications verify that such coverage for accidents is standard. (Score: 4.5)
Fact #75: The defendant clearly stated on police bodycam footage that he had an insurance policy and that it was the insurance company’s responsibility to cover these costs. An exact bodycam segment records the defendant saying, “Yes, I have insurance;” an officer’s official certified body camera recording verifies that this statement was made; and comparative follow-up from the insurer confirms the reported coverage. (Score: 5.0)
Fact #76: The defendant left the scene of the collision without providing the plaintiff the necessary insurance information mandated under the California Vehicle Code. The relevant California Vehicle Code section (e.g., § 16025) requires the exchange of insurance details after an accident; the plaintiff’s statement and witness testimony confirm that no exchange of insurance data occurred; and there is an absence of any documents from the defendant indicating that insurance information was provided. (Score: 5.0)