| Index |
| Previous |
| Next |
| ACAM Memorandum |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. ACAM
(French Control Office of Insurance Companies)
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether defendant ACAM’s actions were in
accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under
applicable law.
ISSUE
Whether defendant ACAM committed negligence by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of
MMA’s alleged bad faith and unfair business settlement practices.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff Texas Riding Co. (subsidiary of TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. its parent company) filed a
complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr. Duchan’s negligent will representation.
On March 23, 2006, Plaintiff TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. filed a complaint before the Commission de Controle des
Assurances (“ACAM”), which is the French Control Office of Insurance Companies, against French defendants La
Mutuelle du Mans Assurances I.A.R.D (“MMA”) and its president Jean Claude Seys (“Mr. Seys”) alleging bad faith and
unfair business settlement practices.
On November 8, 2006, ACAM responded to plaintiff’s complaint asserting that defendant MMA did not commit bad
faith or unfair business practices in its failure to timely pay insurance claims. Further, ACAM failed to address
defamatory remarks MMA made in regards to Mrs. Campus. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney
fees for ACAM’s negligence.
ANALYSIS
Issue : Whether ACAM committed negligence by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of MMA’s
alleged bad faith and unfair business settlement practices.
Plaintiff’s initial cause of action stemmed from defendant’s MMA failure to promptly pay insurance claims in good faith.
An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay insurance claims promptly and in good
faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something actionable. By failing to
indemnify within a reasonable time, plaintiff asserts MMA committed breach of insurance contract.
Plaintiff’s current cause of action against ACAM stems from ACAM’s failure to properly investigate allegations of MMA’
s bad faith. In the context of a tort action against an insurer for bad faith, bad faith is dishonest, malicious, or
oppressive conduct carried out with the state of mind characterized by hatred, ill will, or the spirit of revenge.
A regulatory entity, such as ACAM, has a duty to conduct a proper and thorough investigation regarding
company complaints. ACAM is a regulatory agency just as the Securities & Exchange Commission or the Federal
Trade Commission. As such, it has a duty to ensure that insurance companies are abiding by all applicable laws.
Failure to do so constitutes negligence. Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a
plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1)the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2)a breach of
that duty, (3) a casual connection between defendant’s breach and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff.
As stated previously, ACAM has a duty to regulate insurance companies and investigate complaints. It breached that
duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts that, using a
totality of the circumstances, the amount of time that a reasonable regulatory agency would have used under similar
circumstances. Plaintiff’s injury can be traced to ACAM’s negligence since it filed a complaint with ACAM to investigate
MMA’s bad faith allegations. Had ACAM conducted a proper and thorough investigation, in the form of reports,
against MMA, plaintiff would not be delayed in obtaining justice against MMA. The delay in receiving payment from
MMA for its bad faith and unfair business settlement practices has caused plaintiffs irreparable pecuniary loss. In
essence, ACAM committed bad faith by failing to conduct a thorough investigation of MMA’s alleged bad faith. As
such, plaintiff has met all necessary elements to prove ACAM’s negligence.
Plaintiff also alleges MMA made false and defamatory statements in regards to Mrs. Campus. In order to state a
cause of action for defamation, which requires deliberateness or recklessness as an element, a plaintiff must
prove that defendant: (1) made a statement; (2) which was published to third persons; (3) that the substance of the
statement was false when published; and (4) that defendant knew it was false or made the statement with reckless
disregard as to whether it was false or not.
Here, such statements against Mrs. Campus could be interpreted as being defamatory and given repeated by 2
employees of MMA, Mlle Lacroix and Mlle Arnaud, ACAM (French Control Office of Insurance Companies) could have
addressed the existence of such statements.
Noted: In regard to French law, is considered DEFAMATION whether it is published to third persons or not: “every
allegation or imputation of a fact which attacks the honor or the consideration of the person or of the body/group
which the fact is attributed to ” (article 29 of the law of July 29, 1881)
- Article R621-1 of the Penal code: The not public defamation to a person is punished to the fine foreseen for the
fines of the 1st class.
- Article R621-2 of the Penal code:
The not public insult to a person, when it was not preceded by provocation, is punished to the fine foreseen for the
fines of the 1st class.
Assertion made by the MMA can be qualified as DEFAMATION, because they offended Mrs CAMPUS’s honor or
reputation.
The intention to damage of the author of the defamation or insult is presumed.
In the case at hand, the intention to harm from the MMA Company is rather clear, since this accusation
only aim to avoid MMA Company paying the indemnities of the injury committed by its policyholder, the
notary.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its causes of action against ACAM. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence since
plaintiffs have proven all of its elements.
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. ACAM
(French Control Office of Insurance Companies)
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether defendant ACAM’s actions were in
accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under
applicable law.
ISSUE
Whether defendant ACAM committed negligence by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of
MMA’s alleged bad faith and unfair business settlement practices.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff Texas Riding Co. (subsidiary of TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. its parent company) filed a
complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr. Duchan’s negligent will representation.
On March 23, 2006, Plaintiff TEXAS RIDING LINE Co. filed a complaint before the Commission de Controle des
Assurances (“ACAM”), which is the French Control Office of Insurance Companies, against French defendants La
Mutuelle du Mans Assurances I.A.R.D (“MMA”) and its president Jean Claude Seys (“Mr. Seys”) alleging bad faith and
unfair business settlement practices.
On November 8, 2006, ACAM responded to plaintiff’s complaint asserting that defendant MMA did not commit bad
faith or unfair business practices in its failure to timely pay insurance claims. Further, ACAM failed to address
defamatory remarks MMA made in regards to Mrs. Campus. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney
fees for ACAM’s negligence.
ANALYSIS
Issue : Whether ACAM committed negligence by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of MMA’s
alleged bad faith and unfair business settlement practices.
Plaintiff’s initial cause of action stemmed from defendant’s MMA failure to promptly pay insurance claims in good faith.
An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay insurance claims promptly and in good
faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something actionable. By failing to
indemnify within a reasonable time, plaintiff asserts MMA committed breach of insurance contract.
Plaintiff’s current cause of action against ACAM stems from ACAM’s failure to properly investigate allegations of MMA’
s bad faith. In the context of a tort action against an insurer for bad faith, bad faith is dishonest, malicious, or
oppressive conduct carried out with the state of mind characterized by hatred, ill will, or the spirit of revenge.
A regulatory entity, such as ACAM, has a duty to conduct a proper and thorough investigation regarding
company complaints. ACAM is a regulatory agency just as the Securities & Exchange Commission or the Federal
Trade Commission. As such, it has a duty to ensure that insurance companies are abiding by all applicable laws.
Failure to do so constitutes negligence. Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a
plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1)the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2)a breach of
that duty, (3) a casual connection between defendant’s breach and the plaintiff's injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff.
As stated previously, ACAM has a duty to regulate insurance companies and investigate complaints. It breached that
duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts that, using a
totality of the circumstances, the amount of time that a reasonable regulatory agency would have used under similar
circumstances. Plaintiff’s injury can be traced to ACAM’s negligence since it filed a complaint with ACAM to investigate
MMA’s bad faith allegations. Had ACAM conducted a proper and thorough investigation, in the form of reports,
against MMA, plaintiff would not be delayed in obtaining justice against MMA. The delay in receiving payment from
MMA for its bad faith and unfair business settlement practices has caused plaintiffs irreparable pecuniary loss. In
essence, ACAM committed bad faith by failing to conduct a thorough investigation of MMA’s alleged bad faith. As
such, plaintiff has met all necessary elements to prove ACAM’s negligence.
Plaintiff also alleges MMA made false and defamatory statements in regards to Mrs. Campus. In order to state a
cause of action for defamation, which requires deliberateness or recklessness as an element, a plaintiff must
prove that defendant: (1) made a statement; (2) which was published to third persons; (3) that the substance of the
statement was false when published; and (4) that defendant knew it was false or made the statement with reckless
disregard as to whether it was false or not.
Here, such statements against Mrs. Campus could be interpreted as being defamatory and given repeated by 2
employees of MMA, Mlle Lacroix and Mlle Arnaud, ACAM (French Control Office of Insurance Companies) could have
addressed the existence of such statements.
Noted: In regard to French law, is considered DEFAMATION whether it is published to third persons or not: “every
allegation or imputation of a fact which attacks the honor or the consideration of the person or of the body/group
which the fact is attributed to ” (article 29 of the law of July 29, 1881)
- Article R621-1 of the Penal code: The not public defamation to a person is punished to the fine foreseen for the
fines of the 1st class.
- Article R621-2 of the Penal code:
The not public insult to a person, when it was not preceded by provocation, is punished to the fine foreseen for the
fines of the 1st class.
Assertion made by the MMA can be qualified as DEFAMATION, because they offended Mrs CAMPUS’s honor or
reputation.
The intention to damage of the author of the defamation or insult is presumed.
In the case at hand, the intention to harm from the MMA Company is rather clear, since this accusation
only aim to avoid MMA Company paying the indemnities of the injury committed by its policyholder, the
notary.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its causes of action against ACAM. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence since
plaintiffs have proven all of its elements.
