Reply Brief — Abdul Salam Badmus, Petitioner v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

No: 17-7884

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Abdul Salam Badmus (Pro Se)

Petitioner.

V.

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (MOOIC)

Respondent.

On petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

REPLY BRIEF

Abdul Salam Badmus, Petitioner (Pro Se)

P.O. Box 1946

Richmond Texas 77469

Tel: 832-406-1967

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

.

ii

WRIT APPENDIX CONVERTED TO RECORD OF APPEAL ...........................................iii

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1

Definition of Abbreviations..................................................................................

Introduction....................................................................................................................1

PETITIONER REPLY TO RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................3

Legal Basis of Petitioner Writ of Certiorari...........................................................3

Fake Policy Application Form E42ADR42 (ROA 638).........................................3

All Petitioner Factual Statements Are Supported by Record...........................5

REVERSE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF GRANTED TO RESPONDENT...............10

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ...................................11

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI...........................................11-12

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 33............................................................13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................................14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page(s)

Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc.

477 U. S. 242, 255 (1986)......................................................................3,11

Celotex Corp. v Catrett.

477U.S.317(1986) ............................................................................ 3.12

Green v Dalton

164 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir, 1999)..................................................................11

Gulf Coast Farmers Co-op v Valley Co-op Oil Mill

572 S. W. 2d 726, 737 (Tex-App. corpus Christi 1978)..................................4

Hanna v Plumer

380 U.S. 460 (1965)................................................................................1

Pepper v Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

No. 15-2830 (W. D. LA)...........................................................................4

Tolan v Cotton

134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014)....................................................................12

Statutes

28 U. S. C. 1254...........................................................................................11

Rules

SupremeCourt Rule 10................................................................................................11

SupremeCourt Rule 12.4.............................................................................................10

SupremeCourt Rule 15..................................................................................................5

Supreme Court Rule 18.3.............................................................................................10

SupremeCourt Rule 29................................................................................................10

SupremeCourt Rule 30.2.............................................................................................10

Supreme Court Rule 30.4.............................................................................................10

SupremeCourt Rule 39.8.............................................................................................11

Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 56.................................................................................1,3

17-7884

WRIT APPENDIX CONVERTED TO RECORD OF APPEAL

Appendix

Record of Appeal

1. Appendix D

ROA 626-636

2. Appendix E

1-2

ROA 1218-1219

3. Appendix E

3

ROA 733 or 1173

4. Appendix E

4

ROA 1243

5. Appendix E

5

ROA 1220,1221,1222

6. Appendix E

6

ROA 1226, 1228,1229

7. Appendix E

7

ROA 12231,1224

8. Appendix E

8

ROA 480-482,483-486

9. Appendix E

9

ROA 1225

10. Appendix E

11-12

ROA 430-436

11. Appendix E

13-15

ROA 419-423

12. Appendix E 16

ROA 525, 733

13. Appendix E 17-19

ROA 523,,536-537

14. Appendix E. 20-21

ROA 1478,1481,1488,1492

15. Appendix A. 4-5

Fifth Circuit Ruling

15. Appendix E. 22

ROA 1485

16. Appendix E 23

ROA 1675-1684

17. Appendix F.

ROA 638

'I'

BACKGROUND

DEFINITION OF ABBREVIATIONS:

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Respondent)

(MOOIC)

Abdul Salam Badmus or Badmus

(Petitioner)

Lagos State University Teaching Hospital

(LASUTH)

Lagos State University College of Medicine

(LASUCOM)

United States Postal Service

(US PS)

Selem B Badmus (Late)

(Insured)

INTRODUCTION

This case merit review in order to enhance equal justice for all under law. Issues

in this case involve both Federal and Texas laws, specifically Summary Judgment

Standard and Texas Insurance Contract and other related laws, any suggestion

that Federal law is not involve is baseless. (Hanna v Plumer, 380 U. S. 460 (1965).

The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court conflict with the following: (1) Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56, (2) Decisions of other US Circuit Courts, and most importantly, (3) decisions

and precedents of this Court regarding Summary Judgment Standard. It is

wicked for Mutual of Omaha to make me to go through all these, my brother is

not alive, he died in the Accident of January 24, 2014 and I am not the same as

my brother

The Fifth Circuit Court disagree with the District Court findings that the late

insured is alive and is same as the Petitioner Abdul Salam Badmus. (Appendix A

Page 5) The Fifth Circuit states in pertinent part that "The evidence Badmus

1

claims the District Court ignored may be relevant to the issue of whether he and

the insured are different individuals"

The District Court cannot exercise discretion to grant summary judgment when

there is evidence on record, submitted by both Petitioner and MOOIC which

creates "genuine issue of material fact" precluding the grant of summary

judgment, including documents produced by Mutual of Omaha. Specifically,

the Fake Policy Application Form E42ADR42 (ROA 638) fraudulently inserted by

MOOIC creates genuine issue of material fact for trier of fact to determine. The

Fake Policy Application Form E42ADR42, also creates ambiguity in the contract

of Insurance, the general rule is that "Ambiguity if any in Insurance Contract, the

decision must be for the Insured against the Insurer who is the drafter.

Regarding The Fake Policy Application fraudulently inserted by the Respondent,

the principle of "Res Ipsa Loquitur" applies, as the document speaks for itself. If

the "essential terms" on the Policy Schedule page of The Policy E42ADR411 97023-28M (ROA 626) are compared with the "Fake Policy Application Form

E42ADR42 (ROA 638), it will be clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the

Fake Policy Application Form E42ADR42 does not belong to the Policy/File

number E42ADR41-1 97023-28M which is the underlying policy in this case.

The Fake Policy Application Form was inserted by MOOIC as foundation to claim

that the insured is alive and that the Petitioner is same as the insured so as to

deny legitimate claims. MOOIC is displaying extreme conflict of interest and bad

2

faith by wanting to get Petitioner jailed through series of lies and fraudulent acts

so as to avoid payment of genuine claim.

PETITIONER REPLY TO RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Law Basis of Petitioner Writ of Certiorari

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Anderson v Liberty Lobby

Inc. 477 U. S. 242 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v Catrett. 477 U. S. 317, 327 (1986)

Judges are duty bound to resolve legal disputes, no matter how close the call,

but when facts or inference are conflicting, judges are duty bound at summary

judgment not to decide them. This demands a balanced approach, requiring a

grant of Summary Judgment when there is no material factual dispute and a

trial when there is one. In this case there is genuine issue of material fact

Fake Policy ApDlication Form E42ADR42 (ROA 6381

The Accidental Death Insurance which MOOIC issued to my late brother (the

Insured) is File and Policy Number E42ADR41-197023-28M. (ROA 626-36) This was

confirmed by MOOIC in its response to Request for Admission (ROA 262). The

Fake Policy Application Form number E42ADR42 (ROA 638) fraudulently inserted

by MOOIC does not belong to this policy and also for the following reasons: (a)

Petitioner knows his late brother (Insured) hand writing. The hand writing on the

Fake Policy Application is not that of my late brother.(b) A valid insurance

contract must have an Offer (Policy Application Form) with essential terms

stated in the offer and an Acceptance (The Policy) in strict compliance with the

terms of the Offer. Policy Application Form (the Offer) and The Policy

3

(Acceptance) together constitute an insurance contract. The offer must be

clear and definite just as there must be a clear and definite acceptance of all

terms contained in the offer. Gulf Coast Farmers Co-op v Valley Co-op oil Mill

572 S. W. 2d 726, 737. (Tex.-App. Corpus Christi 1978). (c) Compare essential

terms on first page of The Policy (Policy Schedule) (ROA 626) with the terms on

The Fake Policy Application Form (ROA 638); (1) Amount of Premium $18.95

monthly or $113.70 semiannually on Policy Schedule, while it is stated as higher

$28.95 monthly or $173.70 semiannually on the Fake Application Form. (2)

Number of persons Insured on Policy Schedule is one person while they are two

persons on the Fake Application Form. (3) Plan Type is Individual Life Plan on

Policy Schedule while it is Family Life Plan on the Fake Application Form. (4) Date

on the Policy Schedule was not altered while date on Fake Application Form

was altered. (5) The Address on the Policy Schedule is Texas while the Address

on Fake Application Form is Michigan. (d) The first part of a File and Policy

Number in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company Accidental Death Insurance is

Policy Application Form Number it is either E42ADR41 for Individual Life Plan or

E42ADR42 for Family Life Plan. (e) As an example in Pepper v Mutual of Omaha

Insurance Company, Civil Action No: 15-2830 (W. D. LA) Mutual of Omaha

Insurance Company filed The Policy Number E42ADR41-928667-27M (Doc 32-5)

The Application Form Number is E42ADR41 (Doc 32-5 at 10) this is an Individual

Life Plan. The first line (top line) reads "Application to Mutual of Omaha

Insurance Company for Accidental Death Insurance available under Policy

4

Form E42ADR41. When the Policy Schedule (Doc 32-5 at 1) is compared with

Policy Application form (Doc 32-5 at 10) all the Essential Terms are the same. (f)

The first line (top line) on Fake Application Form (ROA 638) reads "Application to

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company for Accidental Death Insurance

available under Policy form E42ADR42" this is Family Life Plan. (g) The first line

(top line) on the Application Form that belong to The Policy in this case must be

"Application to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company for Accidental Death

Insurance available under Policy Form E42ADR41" since this is Individual Life

Plan. (h) The Policy in this case is Individual Life Plan, no wonder the employees

of MOOIC assigned to this claims are designated as follows: (1) Nicki L

Showalter, Senior Claim Analyst, Individual Life Claims (ROA 733,592) and (2)

Kevin Breeling, Senior Specialist. Individual Life Claims (ROA 536-537,590)

All Petitioner Factual Statements are supported by record

Petitioner complied with Supreme Court Rule 15 as all statements in the petition

are supported by the record, and any suggestion otherwise is not based on

fact.(1) (R0A1218-1219)This is first and second pages of Mutual of Omaha

Investigation Report, in which; (i) Petitioner signature was forged as Petitioner did

not sign the investigation report; (ii) Investigation type is stated to be "Limited

Pointed" this implies that Mutual of Omaha decided ab initio to limit the scope of

investigation; and (iii) The Policy/File Number on the Investigation Report is

E42ADR42-197023-28M, this is not the same as The Policy/ File Number in dispute

E42ADR41-197023-28M, this was the foundation for the inclusion of the Fake

5

njqQoJ C\ 4;JQ

4IJ

i.UEO, .qjjP iubfc

ynpa o

rp.G4öd!oL Ab

ui /iuicJ)

ar±iro€q pA 4J

ioq ?

acq

'

,cn

1414 ouq ?GC.OU

iL

QMJ

wapa qcqGq cp1iJ!.!G cwpo ecobc lot

CU !PQ !tJ?sfl 0*!C'U I.GbQ$4 (

uA1ãc!cu

iwr lu q2nG

JO l

ClCA\1G frmflWpet 04J

. JPO

!U4CO(!O%J ci;q

LC

p C42 .ui4. t,.(-4j!cA\

e aouj,

16\O'3-VIM8 12 UO

VDI

UGtfltdLJ Ot jue ci

q!q

b(E2 O

QWopc

Ct4nQ c

€CQLL4 QO ouA fl&OU c lyeuvas iz IJOJ p02qø;;

2 a, z. .cARL42 iu jjt; bGqou

hffl!.X'GL COWbq MJ ?1b'.cUJ€ Co1 {(t3

G2flbt)5tGC pTót

kJ

GtLJ

2POC4G

êUOI 2b!4

j/jnO fl(G.

2J!01 CIC!W

uu fl') .LJC bOdC. ! 'P! cq

qG2lJc;Gq O tQ1lCM? (1 ), frjCq r

ouu E\rDLSL.

bOCA 'b:a4!ou tou&

10 IP bOA L i;!2 C0.$ L Ifl PC;

VXW F'DS, W il

aw

CoU;houA

OP(

'

,

Ipj 1piG 440b ,tuc) °

4i

QWct0 kJ~1L01.JC€ (c jbaii,\ tot. c c 1Pu1aj 1€ani

(10 ,nJ 0i fpG. vbbflcl'JLjOY EoJ

it.

) orq 5):

tZ JUr4jAjqiai flFG b14U U' I.AO1Jq6L .yI3

ua c. 4,maap nuq

OA0Jc,p t)0qGI

'- 2'oo)

rt ciow ftyj

VOOiC a2'tkGq jO tIJ.Z (1(11W

10 Wfl4i1C

aW2

e 61cu. () jUG jL UG

CquQ

éwhbI!cC'!ou piw c,y

b°c

04 10) Un

c

E 3q[Mi mijeu jpr, bctcA 2:Pent6 (cc

Z(1aUCG

cyo4k'

) oco? .Vbh cc!4fu o

jGkLU av tu

a

P

(}

p cowbnq ip

-.

Policy Application form. (2) Emails sent to Petitioner by Mutual of Omaha was

hacked by Mutual of Omaha through removal from Petitioners email. (ROA

494,524). (3) MOOIC cannot claim it did not receive Proof of Loss when it

confirmed in pertinent part of its letter (ROA 733) of May 15, 2014 it received it

"Thank you for returning to our office Completed Proof of Accidental Death

Claim Forms along with Certified Copy of your brother's Death Certificate" This

letter was signed by Nicki L Showalter, Senior Claims Analyst Individual Life

Claims. (4) In May 2014, MOOIC appointed APT Chambers, Legal Consultants in

Lagos Nigeria to investigate the claim. (ROA 1243). (5) MOOIC Investigation

Report stated that it confirmed from National Population Commission of Nigeria

that the Certificate of Death is authentic. (ROA 1220,1221,1222). (6) MOOIC

Investigation Report stated that it confirmed from the Registrar of High Court of

Lagos State that the Accident Eye Witness and the Affidavit are authentic.(ROA

1226,1228,1229) There is nothing on Record to show that MOOIC investigator

seek to interview the Accident Eye Witness. (7) MOOIC Investigation Report

stated that the Investigator presented a letter to the Office of The Chief Medical

Director LASUTH and the Investigators were instructed to report to the Head of

Division, Medical Records (R0A1223, 1224). At the top right side of the letter

presented to the Chief Medical Director, there is an endorsement "HOD Medical

Records dated 15/5/2014" Petitioner personal finding reveals that MOOIC

Investigator reported at the Medical Record unit. Medical Record Official told

the Investigator that because of the Nationwide Strike of January 22-24, 2014

they have no record for those days, and was asked to go and interview Dr. A. 0.

Olawale who at LASUCOM, the investigator failed to to go and interview Dr.

Olawale, the Physician who issued the Medical Certificate, instead investigator

went to Mrs. 0. A. Akinlawon. Medical Records is a clinical unit under Health

Information Management Department a clinical Department, headed by Mr. E.

S. Ayeni. (8) Departments and Divisions in LASUTH are either clinical units or nonclinical units.(ROA 480-482, 483-486) Clinical units are those that are directly

health related and non-clinical are those not directly health related. That is why

for instance, there are two information technology departments, Health

Information Management clinical unit, headed by Mr. E. S. Ayeni and another

Information & Communication Technology a non-clinical unit. (9)

The letter

(ROA 1225) purportedly signed by Mrs. 0. A. Akinlawon the then Head of

Administrative (Human Resource) a non- clinical unit is suspect and not

authentic. The Chief Medical Director did not direct the Investigators to

Department of Administrative (Human Resource) nor to Mrs. 0. A. Akinlawon.

Investigators were directed to Medical Records. Mrs. 0. A Akinlawon although a

Senior Officer, had no authority to sign such letter. Ruling or Order signed by a

Court Head of Human Resource will not be held authentic just because the

person is a senior officer. (10)

Medical Certificate is medical record not

administrative/personnel record. Medical Records is a unit within Health

Information Management Department headed by Mr. E. S. Ayeni. Medical

Records Officers are paramedical Professionals in their own right. It is a universal

7

standard that only paramedical and medical professional (Clinical)

professionals should be allowed access to confidential medical records and

information of individual patients for privacy reasons. Common sense dictates

that Head of Human Resource has nothing to do with patient medical records

and information. (11) Recently after the retirement of Mrs. 0. A. Akinlawon, her

successor Mrs. Adio Olatokunbo 0. (Jp) was clearly designated Director Hospital

Administration Human Resource, a non-clinical unit This can be confirmed from

the website of Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (12) January 24, 2014,

the day of the Accident resulting in the death of the Insured, there was

Nationwide Strike action by Healthcare Workers throughout Nigeria including

workers at LASUTH excluding Physicians who volunteered to attend to

emergencies. (ROA 430-436) These are Newspapers coverage of the Strike

Action and are self-authenticating. (13) In addition to the fact that Petitioner

personally witnessed the strike action and its effect, as it was total, mortuary and

medical records units were under lock and key, two other witnesses confirmed

the strike action by their affidavits. (ROA 419-423) Petitioner like others who lost

loved one had to carry away the body of his brother as the Mortuary unit

workers were on strike also. (14) July 10, 2014 MOOIC in a letter (ROA 525)

written in bad faith and signed by Nicki L Showalter Senior Claims Analyst,

Individual Life Claims, denied the claim," claiming no proof of loss was

received". Nicki L Showalter is the same person who signed the letter (ROA 733)

of May 15, 2014 stating "Thank you for returning to our office Completed Proof of

N

.

Accidental Death Claim forms along with Certified Copy of your brother's Death

Certificate" (15) "There is nothing on record nor on MOOIC Investigation Report,

to show that any document sent to MOOIC was deemed invalid by any entity"

July 24, 2014 MOOIC in an email (ROA 523) also written in bad faith sent by Kevin

Breeling, Senior Specialist, Individual Life Claims, the claim was denied, claiming

that "Essentially all documents were deemed to be invalid by the various

governing entities that control these documents" January 24, 2015 MOOIC sent

a letter (ROA 536-537) denying the claim, this letter was signed by same Kevin

Breeling, now claiming that "some documents are deemed invalid". (16) The

Fifth Circuit did not agree with the District Court finding that the Petitioner is

same as the insured and that the insured is alive See Appendix A Page 5. The

District Court would have concluded that Petitioner and the late insured are

separate individual if it did not ignore the following: (1) separate work

authorization cards issued to the Petitioners late twin brother (The Insured) (ROA

1478) and the Petitioner (R0A1481) by United States Department of Homeland

Security (2) Cultural and Traditional imperatives regarding twins (ROA 1488-1492)

(3) National Identify Card) (ROA 1485) issued to Petitioner by National Identify

Management Commission of Nigeria on September 30, 2014 after name

change due to Tradition and Culture (separation of the dead twin from the

living twin)

(17) ROA 1675-1684 or App. 23. Mutual of Omaha do not want to mention this,

possibly because this document is the source of The Fake Policy Application

Form. This Policy was issued to the Petitioner and ran parallel with the one issued

to the late Insured, but was allowed to lapse in 2012 when Petitioner determined

that MOOIC was not consistence.

Reverse Extension of Time to File Brief Granted to Respondent

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 30.2 and 30.4 the grant of MOOIC request for

extension of time to file Brief should be reversed. Petitioner complied with

Supreme Court Rules 12.4, 18.3 and 29. February 13, 2018 Petitioner mailed copy

of Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis to Respondent Attorney of Record Ms. Linda P. Wills 909 Fannin # 3300

Houston Texas via USPS First Class Mail. March 5,2018, Petitioner received filing

and deadline notification from the Office of Clerk of this court and immediately

mailed copies of same to Ms. Linda P. Wills, via USPS First Class and Certified Mail,

which she received March 7, 2018.(See USPS Tracking 70162710000010831568.

Respondent is aware of the filing since February 2018, March 7, 2018

Respondent got notification that Deadline to file brief based on the docket date

is March 26, 2018, waited till March 23, 2018, three days to the deadline to seek

extension, The Request was made less than Ten days to the deadline and it is not

based on most extraordinary circumstance. The claim that Petitioner mailed a

flyer the same date is not true. In this case Petitioner had sent series of

documents to MOOIC at both District and Circuit Court levels without any

dispute whatsoever. For these reasons, the extension of time granted MOOIC to

file its brief should be reversed.

10

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner will be grateful if this Honorable Court grant this motion and Writ of

Certiorari in the interest of justice. Petitioner has serious heart problem,

continuous high blood pressure, enlarged heart, hence he cannot secure a job.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. 1254(1).

MOOIC claim that Petitioner did not identify any basis for jurisdiction make no

sense. Contrary to MOOIC statement, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court of the

United States does not provide basis for this Court jurisdiction, what it does is

stipulate 'Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari"

(a)The decision of the Fifth Circuit is not correct

(b)The decision of the Fifth Circuit in this case is in conflict with DC Circuit

opinion in Green v Dalton 164, F.3d 671 and the statements by the

Petitioner are facts supported by documentary evidence on record.

MOOIC confirmed it received proof of loss, confirmed the authenticity of

proof of loss from relevant authorities, insert Fake Policy Application

Form, lied and continue to lie. Summary Judgment should not have

been granted at all as there is genuine dispute of material fact for the

jury not the Judge to decide.

(c)The decision of the Fifth Circuit conflict with the decisions of this Court in

the following cases: (1) Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc. 477 U. S. (1986),

11

S

Celotex Corp v Catrett 477 U.S. 317 (1986), and Tolan v Cotton, 134 S. Ct,

1861, 1863 (2014)

(d) As of May 8, 2018, there are 147491 insurance cases in Federal Dockets

out of which the 5th Circuit alone has 42204 9th Circuit with larger

coverage and population has 23341. While Texas alone has 15267,

California with larger population has 10557. Cases involving Insurance

dispute is a national issue and should be area of judicial focus to reduce

the burden on Courts.

CONCLUSION

The Petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfu

!~

Abdul Salam Badmus (Pro Se) Petitioner

P.O. Box. 1946

Richmond Texas 77469

Tel: 832-406-1967

12

No. 17-7884

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Abdul Salam Badmus (Pro Se)

Petitioner

V.

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, (MOOIC

)

Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE

This reply brief complies with the type-volume

and 33(g)(iii) because this reply contains

brief exempted by the rule.

33

limitation of Supreme Court Rule 33(d)

(words, excluding the parts of the reply

Respectfully Submitted

Abdul Salam Badmus (Pro Se)

May 8, 2018

Petitioner