Update on Applied Underwriters

Applied Underwriters (AU) followed through on their threats to file suit against me for my posts, claiming they were defamatory. I hired an attorney who filed a motion to dismiss the claims, asserting among other things, that my statements were opinion and were protected by the First Amendment.  However, the Court found that the manner in which my statements were made “could” be considered statements of fact and not mere opinions.  As a result, the Court ruled that the case could go forward and denied my motion.  I am happy to report, however, that AU and I have resolved our differences and the case is being dismissed.  In the meantime, I have worked and will continue to work with AU on trying to better understand the program.  While I continue to believe that the terms were not clearly explained to me during the sales process and that there is an unknown factor regarding my deposits that AU decides, I do have a better understanding of my program and my hope is that it will continue to work as they claimed.  I still do not know when I am going to get the return of my deposits, if at all, but I will wait and see as it depends on my claims during the life of the program.  But, more importantly, they provided me with workers’ compensation insurance when no other alternative was available, which allowed me to stay in business. My final word on this issue is that whenever you are procuring insurance, regardless of whether it is from AU or another company, take the time to understand the program and get a broker who will work with you to answer any questions you may have.


  1. Kurt Droffe:

    Sounds a little bit like an agreement with AU like this: I do still think you are a pack of crooks, but to get you off my back and to be able to start investing my time and money in things that are really important for my and my business, I will write openly that we both are fixing things and that it will only get better.
    Seriously, the phrasing reminds my of communist self-accusation, like: My mistake, I will really try to better understand the party line, if I had only known how wrong I was..
    Just wink if I am right..
    No offense please, me too, I might be wrong on this.

  2. ErikTheRed:

    The main thing would be having a good broker that actually understands and cares about the fine print. I'm fortunate to have such a broker, but even then I occasionally have critical policies reviewed by an attorney. I've recently become friends with a few attorneys that specialize in business claims against insurance companies and have learned no end of interesting things from them (clauses to avoid, don't let anything be adjudicated in the State of New York, etc).

  3. Thane_Eichenauer:

    One more example about the undesirable results that arise from government regulated and mandated insurance.

  4. jon49:

    Lesson learned, don't do business with companies that sue their customers for writing reviews. If only they would have been peaceable to begin with.

  5. Daniel Barger:

    Of course the judge did not dismiss the case. Judges are first and foremost lawyers....and they want to insure the gravy train for their associates continues unchecked. Never know, one day they or their kids might need a job as a
    shyster making too goddam much money for nothing. So they will do just about anything, twist any precedent, contort all logic....and at times plain outright lie...to insure the never ending stream of money continues to flow. We do not have a 'justice system' in America. We have a 'legal system'. And the number one priority of that system is POWER AND MONEY.