Informing the case handler

We hadn’t let Annmarie know that we were speaking with John Koon, because we weren’t sure if there would be anything of value to share…. until now. We compiled an email highlighting the points and forwarded it on to her the day after we received the email from John.

Friday, Feb 9, 2018 we called her to make sure that she had received the email. She said she had and had forwarded it on the two underwriters involved. She said that one had already agreed to a third expert opinion, but the other had not. We suggested that another opinion was not necessary and she agreed. She said she would suggest that, but didn’t know what their response would be.

When asked who the two people were, she said that one was an underwriter in the complaints department. He seemed to be easy to work with. The other was a claims manager and things hadn’t gone so well with him. She had to get them both to agree on any action.

We also clarified that the information was going to Coverys the company that took over the handling of the ProSight Syndicate 1110 business and not ProSight in the US.

Progress on Stage 2 Review with The Society of Lloyds

Feb 1, 2018 we called Joseph because we hadn’t heard anything since our discussion on Jan 26, 2018, when he said he would “get right on it” . He provided us the name and phone number of our case handler, after stating that he was surprised we hadn’t been notified.

We called Annmarie Lyle, a Stage 2 Complaints Executive (Policyholder and Third Party Oversight, Performance Management). We were encouraged to hear that she had already reviewed the file and felt that there were multiple issues. She had prepared a communication to the underwriters which she was about to send. She stated…..


  • Bill Trenkle report seemed more credible than John Koon’s report because of things that were wrong in his report.
  • ProSight rested on the opinions of the attorney’s but not supported by the facts.
  • The court would not accept the positions of the attorney’s.
  • They couldn’t claim lack of maintenance because of the amount of money spent.

What a relief! We felt like we actually had someone on the phone who was seeing through the crap that had been dished out to us by ProSight. Perhaps there was someone who could actually be an advocate and make this happen.

She said that in these situations where there are two experts with differing views, the approach was to get a third “expert” to break the tie. She readily admitted that she did not have the technical expertise and felt like the underwriters might be willing to get a third opinion. She suggested that she might hear something back from them by the following mid-week (Feb 6-7), and she would let us know what she heard.

We felt guardedly good after getting off the phone. We just can’t get our hopes up. However, we were confident that if they got a qualified person to review the case and all the documentation, we would be successful.