Free Brief in Support of Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9
Robert Quinn, Volume I

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 1 of 7

Page I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. Ol-M-2018 (MJW)

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a/k/ a AIMCO, a Maryland corporation,

Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., a Pennsylvania corporation, SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a

Connecticut corporation,
FIRST CAPITAL AGENCY, INC., d/b/a FIRST CAPITAL GROUP, a New York corporation, NATIONAL PROGRAM SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey

corporation,
VITO B. GRUPPUSO, a New Jersey res ident, and

ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, .1

Defendants,
and
ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.
RAY BALDWIN, a Texas resident, SWAIN & BALDWIN INSURANCE, INC., a Texas

corporation,
Third-Party Defendants,

and
ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.
Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

A-8

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9
Robert Quinn Volume I

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 2 of 7

Page iis

1 THE DEPONENT: In my view, an
2 insurance company cannot change the premium once

3 they've indicated it. If they put such pressure

4 and I believe that I can - - well, I i m not going to

5 do the research -- i still believe that is the rule,
6 that they cannot change it. I believe that, even if
7 they tell the insured, if they coerce the insured to
8 pay it and the insured does pay it, I don't bel ieve

9 that alters that that's not appropriate for the

10 company.

11 Q. (By Mr. Martin) It's your opinion
12 that the insurance company can i t accept additional

13 premium offered by the insured?

14 A. Under threat of coercion, no.
15 Q. What if there i s no threat of coercion?

16 A. Again, it would be - - in my opinion,
17 they would be violating what I understand to be the
18 rules, that you cannot change the premium midterm.

19 Q. SO even if an insured and an insurer
20 agree that additional premiums should be paid on a
21 policy to address concerns surrounding that policy,

22 you believe that would be inappropriate and

23 impermissible?

24 A. I believe if you had equal bargaining
-~5 positions, that it would be permissible.
Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 3 of 7

Robert Quinn Volume I

Page 119

1

Q, What would lead you to believe that
equal bargaining conditions existed?

2
3

A. That both parties are capable of
understanding what the issues are, that they have
equal financial strength and equal knowledge of

4 5 6

insurance.

7
8

Q. What do you believe the role of a risk
manager is?
A. I believe the role of a risk manager
is essentially to try to assist a company in determining what the appropriate risk is and what
the appropriate insurance for the risk is.

9

10

11
12
.3
. 14

Q. Do you believe that a risk manager
should be capable of understanding the various

15

insurance issues involved in negotiating with an
insurance company for coverage?

16

17 18 19 20

A. Let's try that again, please.
Q. Do you believe that a risk manager
should be capable of understanding the various

insurance issues involved in negotiating with an
insurance company for coverage?

21 22
23

A. If I were a risk manager, I certainly
would want that ability. i would want to be able to
do that, yes.

24
"'5

Q. And if you were an insured who had
Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

--

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9
Robert Quin Volume L

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 4 of 7

Page 120

1 hired a risk manager, would you expect your risk

2 manager to have that type of ability?
3

A.
Q.

I would certainly hope so, yes.

4

Have you ever been involved in a

5 situation where an insurance policy was running at

6 134 percent loss ratio rather than an expected loss

7 ratio of 55 percent?
8

A.

No.

9

Q. Do you believe that, in such a
situation, it would be inappropriate for an
insurance carrier to apply any additional premium it

10 11 12
,3

recei ved to covering the losses that had occurred
above 55 percent loss ratio?

14

A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your
question.

I
1

15 16
17

I

j
I
1

Q. Do you believe that if you found
yourself -- let me do it this way:

Do you believe

18 that if an insurance company found itself in a
19 situation where it was running 134 percent loss

20 ratio rather than a 55 percent loss ratio, and had

21 obtained additional premium from the insured, that
22 it would be inappropriate to use that addi tional

23 premium to help offset those losses?
24
MR. ROBERTS:
the question.
Obj ect to the form of

?5

I t's vague,
Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 5 of 7

Robert Quin Volume Il

Page 313

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
3 Civil Action No. 01-M-2018 (MJW)

4 APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a/k/a AIMCO, a Maryland corporation,
5 6

Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., a Pennsylvania corporation, SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, a

7
8

9
1.0

Connecticut corporation,
FIRST CAPITAL AGENCY, INC., d/b/a FIRST CAPITAL GROUP, a New York corporation, NATIONAL PROGRAM SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

corporation,
VITO B. GRUPPUSO, a New Jersey resident, and ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation,
~

Defendants,
and
ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff,

, ,
i l

v,
RAY BALDWIN, a Texas resident, SWAIN & BALDWIN INSURANCE, INC., a Texas

19 corporation,
21 and

20 Third-Party Defendants,

23 Third-Party Plaintiff,

22 ROGER METZGER ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation,

24 v.
5

Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 6 of 7

Robert Quinn Volume Il

Page 4S3

1 2
3

correct?
A. Q.

That's true.
Now, I just asked you if you had seen

4 Mr. Walter's report; and you said no.

5 What is your understanding Of the
6 moneys that AIMCO contends it is owed in this case?
7
8

A.

I've not really attempted to formulate
I have

that.

I i ve read some of the discussions.

9 not felt that that was my responsibility to review

10 those in detail.

11 And when I first discovered that I had
12

a copy of Mr. Walter's report, I set that aside to

.3 read when I have the time to do so.
14
Q.

But you do understand that AIMCO 's

15 damages in this case derive, at least in part, from
16 the AFCO money?
17 18

A.
Q.

Yes, I do.

And you did have occasion to review

19 the AFCO Premium Finance Agreement; is that correct?

20 21
23 24

A.
Q.

Yes, ma'am, I did.

And did you notice that that was

22 executed by AIMCO' s president, Mr. Kompaniez?
A.
Q.
i did.

Did you see any evidence that First

"\5 Capital knew of the AFCO Premium Finance Agreement

Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500

Case 1:01-cv-02018-RPM-MJW

Document 647-9

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 7 of 7

Robert Quinn Volume Il

Page 4S4

2 A. I don't recall any such evidence.
3 Q. Do you recall seeing any evidence that
4 any of the AFCO premium finance money went through
5 First Capital on its way to any of the carriers?
6
7

1 prior to this litigation?

A.
Q.

i did not.
Did you review Mr. Kompaniez i s

8 deposition?
9

A.

i did.

10 Q. And did you notice in there his
11 testimony that despite having executed the premium

12 finance agreement, obligating AIMCO to repay over
.3 $28 million in financed premiums, Mr. Kompaniez did

14 nothing to ensure that the AFCO money actually made

15 it to Security of Hartford?

16 A. I don't recall him testifying to any
17 steps he took to do so.

18 Q. And do you also recall that he
19 testified he did nothing to monitor how the payments

20 were being made to AFCO to satisfy the loan?

22 Q. You don't recall that testimony from
23 him?
24
A.
Q.

21 A. I don't recall that specifically.
No, not specifically.

'5

Assuming that that is his testimony --

Calderwood-Mackelprang, Inc. 303.477.3500