Does Thomas J. Boyle’s Former Employer Know His Cause of Death?

“I REQUEST THE DOCUMENTS YOU HOLD”

by Sharon Rondeau

Kandahar Province, Afghanistan

(Oct. 25, 2016) —On June 19, 2012, civilian contractor Thomas J. Boyle, Jr. was killed during an insurgent attack against the Forward Operating Base (FOB) Provincial Reserve (PR), to which he had been assigned in support of U.S. military intelligence operations in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.  At the time, he was employed by MPRI, which was later renamed “Engility,” a division of L-3 Communications.

Three different death certificates with as many causes of death have been provided to his widow, Pauline, as well as a condolence note from now-Army Inspector General David E. Quantock, who then headed the Army’s criminal investigative division, also known as “CID.”

Mrs. Boyle believes that Quantock obscured her husband’s cause of death to secure his promotion to Inspector General, which occurred in late 2014. “He was colluding with Ltc Matt McKinley, the commanding officer of PR who wanted only to protect his career,” Mrs. Boyle told The Post & Email.

Mrs. Boyle further explained, “Metlife had never issued a payout on an AD&D policy (Accidental Death and Dismemberment).  A payout on a life policy was made on 8/22/2012.  If a payout was made on August 22, 2012, on just which policy is Metlife denying and suggesting an appeal?  An AD&D policy?  A ‘dead peasant’ or COLI policy?  Another life insurance policy? or all three?   How can Metlife deny a policy that more recently now states does not exist?”

The body of a letter from Metlife dated July 2, 2014 reads:

“Regarding the lack of additional information to support an appeal – it is obvious Metlife already had the accidental bodily injury report,” Mrs. Boyle said.

Snip taken from Metlife’s claim notes on the death of Thomas J. Boyle, Jr. on June 19, 2012; full document can be viewed here
Snip from Aetna claim notes citing Mr. Boyle’s cause of death as “accidental bodily injury”

Mrs. Boyle said that her husband would never have purchased insurance policies which would not issue a payment in the event of his death, and she insists that all of the companies involved knew that he would be deployed in a “war zone.”  “More importantly, why would the insurance companies sell policies knowing they were never going to pay out?” Mrs. Boyle asked.

According to Mrs. Boyle, none of the companies which provided policies to her husband has turned over the complete files to her despite their insistence that everything has been released.  Through another source, Mrs. Boyle was provided notes and emails from some of the insurers’ files which were not provided to her directly.

An initial report of Mr. Boyle’s death issued by Engility indicated that more details would be forthcoming. However, Mrs. Boyle has never received a supplementary report.  She also said that the U.S. Department of Labor informed her that a report it should have received from Engility, as required by law, was never delivered.

Mrs. Boyle is convinced that the U.S. Army placed pressure on Engility in the form of “no more contracts” so that the true cause of her husband’s death would be hidden indefinitely.  She believes that the purpose of obscuring the truth was to protect not only Quantock, but also members of the 303rd Military Intelligence Battalion whose rifles scattered bullets into a tent that day, killing an Afghani interpreter.  Mrs. Boyle said that in addition, “the negligent firing of rifles by two other Reservists” is what ended Mr. Boyle’s life.

After the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, the military initially said that he was killed by an insurgent. However, after facing much pressure from Tillman’s family, Army officials were later forced to admit that he was killed by “friendly fire.” Mrs. Boyle believes that the same scenario took place with regard to her husband more than four years ago based on private, eyewitness accounts which differ from the Army’s ever-evolving narrative.

Mrs. Boyle has noted that Aetna and Metlife had taken out “janitor” policies on her husband which resulted in their own enrichment upon his death. Regarding his employer, she said, “In this instance L-3 was the beneficiary of two ‘dead peasant’ policies,” she told The Post & Email.  “Not one, but two that I know of — there could be even more.”

In a December 14, 2012 letter, AIG Accidental Death and Dismemberment Adjuster Terry L. Fallert wrote that “Mr. Boyle did sustain accidental injuries” the day he was killed, but that “Afghanistan is not a Designated War Risk Territory, as stated in the policy,” thereby justifying a denial of benefits.

“This documents that AIG knew all along about the ‘accidental death’, ” Mrs. Boyle said.

In an August 26, 2016 email to Kimberly Miller of AIG, Mrs. Boyle wrote:

From: Pauline Boyle
Subject: Fw: Boyle respons
Date: August 26, 2016 at 3:57:19 PM CDT
To: “Kimberly M. Miller”
Reply-To: Pauline Boyle

Dear Ms. Miller,

I am responding to your email dated August 25, 2016. It is rather amusing that you directed me to contact National Union Fire Insurance in previous communications and now you comment to me on their behalf. Before I go into greater detail I have compared my July 15, 2016 email to your response and wish to make the following distinctions/corrections. I have provided a copy of the complete email in the attachment below.

I asked for clarification on the companion claim 061-060161 including what policy it attached to. Your response refers to L-3 policy PAI 9132929 – which is not what I questioned. However if there is a link to companion claim 061-060161 and PAI 9132929 please confirm otherwise please explain what the 061-060161 claim refers to. Also please supply a copy of this policy, the beneficiary, and the payout as well as providing a copy of the administrative file for the ‘061’ claim.

I also asked for clarification regarding the administrative file/record you state I was provided on June 29, 2015. If I were to compare the contents of this file to the administrative record you provided to XXXXXXX, can you tell me if they are the exact same file? Please respond.

My request for documents associated to my husband’s policy and/or any other policy connected to it was not addressed in it’s entirety. This would include COLI, janitor and/or companion policies. Please provide me the administrative record for any/all of these policies associated with Thomas Boyle, as well.

Additionally your email states that you have not received any information that would change your decision or compel you to reopen my claim. At this time I would like to go into further detail regarding that statement. You also mention that you have provided documents outlined by Erisa and the associated Act of 1974. I do not think that would supersede misleading ane/or fraudulent activity. Since you state this insurance falls under the umbrella of Erisa – there are certain aspects I would like to point out to you.

– email dated November 17, 2012 to Chris Potter, Director of Corporate Ethics EngilityCorp in which I am asking repeatedly for complete copies of all insurance policies/files. What was her due diligence?
– email dated November 4, 2012 asks for complete copies of all insurance policies including Chartis AD&D.
– email dated November 17, 2012 also states ‘I have asked repeatedly for a copy of insurance policies …
– One would easily deduce I asked for the complete file on numerous occasions and according to your very own email of 8/25/2016 you state I was provided this complete file on June 29, 2015. Which means it took me over 3 years for me to obtain the complete administrative file. Please note that I filed my appeals without the benefit of this administrative file and the information that it holds. Not very fair.

Let’s move on to claim notes in which it is stated ‘it just doesn’t make sense that someone would get that rider knowing that basically every troublesome country would be excluded’. A copy is provided in the attachment. Another claim note states Mr. Boyle was not excluded for accidental death benefits if he had died due to injuries sustained in any number of different accident scenarios…

In yet another email there is mention about the location for corresponding certificate for this policy. This certificate would identify the exclusions and locations of exemptions as well as identify war risk territories. It is written, ‘The certificate is online on the Marsh website – this was placed on there as a result of this claim'[. I hand wrote a comment for clarification purposes underneath this statement.

Then the notes goes on to state there is a listing of countries not covered in the war risk exclusion in the certificate but not the countries that are covered. I made another little handwritten note which states – so if the certificate was not there when Tom purchased this policy (see above) how could he have known about the exclusion? I also ask why the listing is for countries not covered as opposed to countries that ARE covered for the sake of transparency. Ambiguity.

Further claim notes confirm that the certificate and welcome packet was mailed to our home in Illinois. But Tom had deployed already – this you did not bother to confirm so again I hand wrote the date for your convenience. Actually in other emails attached you will see the interaction between AIG, Marsh, and L-3/EngilityCorp. It would have been very easy to ask the employer to confirm the date of deployment. However this was not done. And the answer was not to you benefit.

Claim note dated 5/31/2013 I have highlighted the portion of importance in which the SPD (summary plan description) is ‘not on Marsh’s website, he would have to go the the Engility/L-3 intranet to view the SPD.’ She indicated (this is your note Kimberly so you can confirm who ‘she’ is) that due to this claim they have put the certificate on their website…. It seems Ms. Miller that you have known all along about this controversial issue yet neglected to act appropriately as in – ‘questions of ambiguity are always decided in favor of the client’.

Claim note dated 12/03/2012 Four years ago – this note confirms Terry Fallert called Pearl Mihara of Engility about claim denial. More importantly no one bothered to pick up the phone to call the employer regarding 2013 inquiries of deployment dates that would confirm Thomas Boyle never read the certificate. Ms Mihara was summarily dismissed by Engility in December 2012 for your information.

March 1, 2013 emails confirm ‘no solicitation’ for voluntary AD&D insurance and also more discussion about the certificate in question.

The attached copy titled ‘Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage’ is a page taken from the company paid Aetna policy plan which is also covered by Erisa, limitations are listed and war or any act of war (declared or not declared) is listed therein. Important in verifying that both policies are Erisa.

The attachment titled ‘Special Coverage for Aircraft Pilots and Crew” is taken from the L-3/Engility SPD – summary plan description – this page covers Voluntary AD&D benefits (like AIG). Again it is noted that declared or undeclared war is not covered. So even though my husband could not in any way have seen the certificate that held the war risk exclusion I have now proven by your own notes that he could not have seen the SPD either where the exclusions are listed including the fact that acts of war are not covered because there was no instruction on the Marsh site to go to the L-3 site to review these limitations/exclusions. No one would know to do this.

The next attachment states – accidental information not received (cod homicide) Cause of Death Homicide, please review cert D/C. Now let’s look at the last attachment in which the first notation states – ‘time of his death. The act of war limitation does not apply. Death due to accidental bodily injury. To confirm this notation is from the claim notes of Aetna. I have provided this to you previously. Aetna provided the company based policy which is also covered under the umbrella of Erisa – just like AIG/Chartis.

At this time I wish to point out that Aetna paid both a universal life policy to me and also an accidental death policy to me. So please explain, how two policies – both under the same SPD and umbrella of Erisa have two different determinations regarding payouts, exclusions, and cause of death? As previously noted there is plenty of documentation regarding the communication between all insurance companies and also the employer. One would think that the determination of one insurance company would influence the determination of another. Clearly that is the law. Why or how is it that AIG did not receive the same documentation to process the AIG/Chartis policy that Aetna had is of question. More importantly why are two Erisa policies being processed in direct contrast to previous determinations. There were numerous emails in which simple requests and questions are denied or left unanswered regarding this question of processing, questions asked by me. I ask that you cease this pattern of behavior and treat me with the respect any Gold Star family member is entitled.

It is my understanding that once a determination is made regarding processing – then all policies must make the same determination using the same documents. Again all of the policies my husband purchased from his personal plan site fall under the auspice of Erisa. Yet there exists discrepancies regarding processing and documentation as well as the inability of my husband to access the exclusions and certificate that effect this issue. I think it time for AIG/Chartis to contact Aetna and ask for their administrative file. Please supply me a complete copy as well – I would very much like to compare these files – ie what you are supplied vs what I am supplied and what I already possess. I have also attached a partial claim note from Metlife/Mercer regarding the determination of accidental homicide for your review. I also suggest that you contact Mercer/Metlife/Marsh regarding the note of 7/09/12 and ask for their complete documentation supporting that statement. Marsh as the administrator should have distributed documentation to AIG and Metlife. After you accomplish this, I am quite sure that the ‘Erisa Appeal Committee’ will realize that this information would ‘change your decision or compel one to reopen this claim’. Time to do your due diligence.

Based upon this information (most of which you have had in your possession for years) and the documentation that you will surely obtain from Aetna and Marsh/Metlife/Mercer (providing you or Marsh do not already possess it) I therefore respectfully request that AIG/Chartis reopen this claim and act accordingly. Please note that throughout this email I have requested copies of the complete administrative record for any/all insurance policies associated with my deceased husband Thomas J Boyle Jr – to include all COLI, janitor and companion policies – that request remains open. Thank you.

Regards,
Pauline Boyle

Having received no response, on September 20, 2016, Mrs. Boyle sent another email in which she stated simply, “I AM REQUESTING A RESPONSE.”  “I have never received a response as of this date,” she said on Tuesday.

Regarding a Proof of Death form filled out and submitted by a Human Resource employee of MPRI/EngilityCorp to Aetna, Mrs. Boyle told The Post & Email, “Only basic life is checked, but Accidental Death was paid, too. Why was this policy not notated on the form submitted?

In an October 12 email addressed to three individuals at Engility as well as the company’s Ethics department, Mrs. Boyle wrote:

Dear Ms. Potter Mr. Murray and Ms Bosman,

I have been advised to contact you L-3/EngilityCorp with my request.

I am hereby requesting a copy of the detailed military reports, documents, medical reports, medical examiner reports, investigation reports, cause of death, serious incident report,  etc. with regards to my husband Thomas J Boyle.  Also provide a copy of all the documents you provided to Marsh, Aetna, AIG/Chartis/Natl Union insurance companies for processing of insurance claims.  I have attached two notes taken from insurance companies that processed claims for Tom – within these notes it is written that the cause of death is accidental homicide/accident.  The documentation for these notes came from L-3 EngilityCorp MPRI or whatever corporate name you wish to use.  I do not wish to be told to contact the insurance companies.  I am contacting you with my request.  I request the documents your hold.  If you do not have any of these documents in your possession, please state so in writing.

I would appreciate you not responding with an untrue statement – as in ‘we already sent them’ because you have not.  If you believe you have sent these reports then please be kind enough to resend.  I would be happy to meet with you in person should you need further clarification.

Thank you

Pauline Boyle

In a separate communication, she wrote to Kimberly Miller of AIG:

I forgot to add the following to my earlier email – would you also please comment on why the burden of proving an exclusion is not applicable to AIG?

‘because AIG bears the burden of proving an exclusion (albeit by preponderance of the evidence) and it acknowledged it did not know the cause of death.

Mention of not knowing the cause of death is taken from your very own emails.  You processed a claim without knowing the cause of death according to your emails and clearly do not meet the burden of the exclusion.

Please supply supporting response to these questions.

Thank you

Mrs. Boyle

“AIG knew the cause of death by the Fallert letter December 2012,” Mrs. Boyle told us. “AIG altered the record and files to fit their own narrative….they intentionally and fraudulently withheld information from me and my former attorney. AIG has withheld the report that holds the truth about my husband’s death.”

One Response to "Does Thomas J. Boyle’s Former Employer Know His Cause of Death?"

  1. OPOVV   Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:13 AM

    And yet . . .”What widespread corruption?”
    I personally believe that the “case” against LTC Terry Lakin was a test case – read THE test case – of the power of this Administration lorded over the Joint Chiefs of Staff/rest of the military to see who would toe-the-line: they ALL caved.
    Anyone who has served know that Article 134 of the UCMJ trumps all . . . EXCEPT the Constitution, especially the part about presenting a defense against charges levied.
    LTC Lakin was DENIED to present a defense by order of the corrupt Judge Denise R. Lind while the rest of the military calmly – along with the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, congress AND the mainstream news media – most stations NEVER even mentioned Lakin’s name – went about their day-to-day activities never bothering about the Lakin case (or, for that matter, Obama’s never-presented BIRTH CERTIFICATE).
    It was the beginning of the end; the turning point of when America started its fall from grace into the cornucopia soup of Third World corruption where power and greed join forces in defeating honesty and the Golden Rule.
    I say take them ALL out to be tried in a kangaroo court where the verdict is a foregone conclusion: evidence?
    We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.