Chapter 15 - My signature
Hartwell’s SIU interviewed me for three hours.
Recorded.
Counsel present.
Marissa Webb asked:
“Did you review the proof of loss before signing?”
“Not item by item.”
“Why?”
“I trusted Celeste.”
“Did anyone prevent you?”
“No.”
“Were you under time pressure?”
“Only ordinary work pressure.”
“Did you receive the funds?”
“Yes.”
“Did you believe the claim was accurate?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Celeste and Weston were coordinating. Hartwell had its own adjuster. I assumed discrepancies would be caught.”
Marissa said:
“An insurer’s adjuster is not a substitute for the insured telling the truth.”
“I understand that now.”
Then my text:
Whatever Celeste says is damaged, add it.
“What did you mean?”
“That I was delegating the list.”
“Do you see why it looks bad?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know undamaged items were moved into workshop?”
“No.”
“Did you know the lamp was broken by Piper?”
“No.”
“Did you know camera was missing rather than water-damaged?”
“No.”
“Did you receive any money from Celeste or Weston?”
“No.”
Then financials confirmed.
No kickback.
No secret split.
Then she asked:
“If Hartwell determines an overpayment occurred, will you repay?”
“Yes.”
Nathan looked at me.
We had discussed.
Correct answer.
Not because saying yes made me innocent.
Because insurance is indemnity.
If I received money I was not entitled to keep, I should not keep it.
Then Hartwell’s position.
They did not refer me for criminal investigation.
The state unit still reviewed all policyholder conduct independently.
But evidence did not support deliberate fraud by me at that stage.
Hartwell proposed resolving my side once amount finalized.
My biggest consequence would be:
Repayment.
Higher future scrutiny.
Legal cost.
Trust damage.
Not prison.
Then I went home.
Piper was building a tower from pool noodles.
She asked:
“Did insurance people yell?”
“No.”
“Did you get in trouble?”
“They asked hard questions.”
“Are you going to pay money?”
“Probably some.”
“How much?”
“Adults are still figuring it out.”
She thought.
Then:
“Can I pay for the lamp from my allowance?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“Because the lamp is not the forty-thousand-dollar problem.”
That made her eyes widen.
I regretted saying amount category.
She whispered:
“Forty thousand?”
I corrected:
“Possible claim difference. Not your responsibility.”
Then she said:
May you like
“My allowance is only twenty-three dollars.”
At least math survived.
