The Rainmaker Page #7

That's not going to happen.

Cross your hands behind you.

This way, ma'am.

Mr Lufkin. You are the vice-president

of Claims for Great Benefit.

- Approach the witness?

- You may.

You recognise this?

Go on.

Read that to the jury.

"On seven prior occasions, we have

denied your claim in writing. "

"We now deny it for the final time.

You must be stupid, stupid, stupid. "

"Sincerely, Everett Lufkin.

vice-president, Claims. "

- That's you?

- Yes.

How do you explain that?

It was a difficult time for me personally.

I was under a lot of stress.

We'd denied this claim

seven times before.

I was trying to be emphatic.

I snapped.

I regret having written it

and I apologise.

- Isn't it a little late for an apology?

- Maybe.

Maybe? The boy is dead, isn't he?

Yes.

Who is Jackie Lemanczyk?

Jackie Lemanczyk

is a former claims handler.

- She worked in your department?

- Yes.

- When did she stop working for you?

- I don't remember the date.

- How about October 30th?

- Sounds close.

- Two days before her deposition?

- I really don't remember.

I'd like to refresh the witness's

recollection under Rule 612.

October 30. Two days before she was

to give a deposition in this matter.

She was the person responsible

for handling Donny Ray's claim.

And you fired her?

Of course not.

- How did you get rid of her?

- She resigned. It says so in the letter.

Why did she resign?

"I hereby resign for personal reasons. "

- It was her idea to leave her job?

- That's what it says.

- Nothing further.

- Step down, sir.

Hi, I'm Jackie Lemanczyk's brother,

James.

- Is it possible to see her?

- James Lemanczyk? One minute.

All rise.

Let me explain, Ms Lemanczyk.

I'm really not your brother.

Rudy, good.

I'd like you to meet Jackie Lemanczyk.

This is Jackie Lemanczyk.

Where she goes, Carl goes.

This is my partner, Rudy S. Baylor.

Just tell him what you told me.

Ms Lemanczyk.

It's a pleasure to meet you.

- Is it all right if I sit down?

- Sure.

- The Black file was assigned to you?

- Yes, that's correct.

The initial claim was sent to me.

Pursuant to company policy,

I sent her a denial.

- Why?

- Why?

Because all claims

were initially denied.

- All claims?

- All claims.

This is how it works.

The policy is sold door-to-door

in the poorer neighbourhoods.

Paid in cash, each week.

The claim comes in

and is assigned to a handler.

Basically a low-level paper-pusher.

Anyway, the handler reviews it -

- and immediately sends a letter

denying the claim.

The handler sends the file

to Underwriting, -

- who sends a memo to Claims saying,

"Don't pay until you hear from us. "

All these people work for this company,

but they don't know each other.

The departments are intentionally

kept at war with each other.

And, meanwhile, there's the client...

They're getting all these letters, some

from Claims, some from Underwriting.

Most people give up.

And this, of course, is intended.

- Your next witness.

- The plaintiff calls Jackie Lemanczyk.

Objection!

Approach the bench?

This is a complete surprise.

When did you find her?

- I didn't know she was lost.

- It's a fair question.

- It's my first trial.

- That's not good enough.

- We have the right to be notified.

- I agree.

- You're saying she can't testify?

- She's listed in the pre-trial order.

Pursuant to Rule 26.06, we have

the right to call her as a witness.

Objection overruled.

Go memorise.

- State your name.

- Jackie Lemanczyk.

- How long were you at Great Benefit?

- Six years.

- When did your employment end?

- October 30th.

- How did your employment end?

- I was fired.

- You did not resign?

- No, I was fired.

Approach the witness..? This letter

says you quit for personal reasons.

The letter is a lie. I was fired so they

could claim I no longer worked there.

Would you point out the man

who made you write this letter?

Jack Underhall.

He told me I was leaving immediately,

and I had two choices:

I could call it a firing and leave

with nothing, or I could write the letter -

- and the company would give me

$10,000 in cash to keep quiet.

I had to make that decision right there,

in his presence.

Go on.

I took the cash...

...and I signed a letter saying I would

never discuss my files with anybody.

- Including the Black file?

- Specifically the Black file.

So you knew that

that claim should have been paid?

Everybody knew.

- The company was playing the odds.

- What odds?

The odds that the insured

would not consult a lawyer.

Now, during that time -

you were a senior claims examiner.

Were you ever given instructions

on how you should handle claims?

Deny all claims for a year.

Add the money saved, deduct

the amount spent on settlements...

- There's a pot of gold left.

- Approach the clerk?

This has been marked

defence exhibit 6. Do you recognise it?

It's Great Benefit's

company claims manual.

Would you flip over

to section U, please?

- There is no section U.

- Was there one in your time?

Yes. It was an executive memorandum

in the senior examiner's manual.

This is Jackie Lemanczyk's

actual senior claims manual.

Within it, there is a section U.

I ask...

Objection! Approach the bench!

We weren't given a complete manual.

These are stolen work papers.

They may not be admitted.

I ask you instruct my colleague not to

read from or make reference to it.

Why isn't this admissible?

- It wasn't proffered at the correct time.

- I just found out about it.

Assuming I can't get this in now,

do you have any more questions?

- No, Your Honour.

- You may cross-examine the witness.

Is it true...

...that you have been committed

to an institution for various problems?

I was not committed. I am suffering

from alcoholism and depression.

I voluntarily checked into a facility.

I was covered by Great Benefit.

- But they're denying my claim.

- Is that why you're here?

Because you're angry

with Great Benefit?

I hate Great Benefit and

most of the worms that work there.

Was Mr Lufkin a worm

when you were sleeping with him?

Objection!

Mr Drummond may find this fun

to talk about, but this is not relevant.

- This is no fun for me.

- Overruled. Let's see where it takes us.

You had an affair with Mr Lufkin?

Ms Lemanczyk?

As long as I had sex with

certain executives at Great Benefit, -

- my pay was increased

and I was promoted.

- When I stopped, I was demoted.

- Ms Lemanczyk...

You agreed not to disclose confidential

private claims information, yes?

You testified that you sealed that

promise by demand of $10,000.

- That payment was not my idea.

- But you accepted it.

Even though you never intended

to keep that promise.

You were very angry

at Great Benefit and Mr Lufkin.

They preyed on me because I was

broke and single and had two kids.

So you threatened to go to his wife.

That $10,000 was just blackmail.

A way to extort money from

the company you hated. Isn't that right?

Your testimony here is just a lie!

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes