Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 25, 2024

Owen Costanza’s Response Misleading; Doesn’t Match Public Records –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On March 9, 2021


Yesterday we published complaints against Owen Costanza by the Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin State Insurance Licensing Regulators, and Costanza responded with his version of what he was willing to tell us.

These were as recent as 2011 and 2015 (Stipulation and Consent Order) – not things that happened “in his 20s”.

The problem is, his response does not match with public records obtained from state regulatory agencies.

Last night I sent him follow-up questions, but instead of answering them, he took to social media to gain sympathy and peddle misinformation. In the social media post, he conveniently “forgets” to mention the most important part of the questions I sent him, which was the Letter of Termination, his blaming other people, and his claims of disorderly conduct instead of what it actually was.

In Costanza’s response letter to our article:

  • he blamed employees for “accidentally” lying on the license applications in two states
  • claimed the conviction was a “disorderly conduct” when he was 24 years old
  • he blamed a business partner on his issues in Illinois, claiming the business partner did not follow guidelines and there was money that needed to be replaced, and since he [Costanza] was the one with the license, he was the one responsible

In the FOIA responses:

  • Indiana Director of Fraud Investigations sent a letter detailing Costanza’s convictions, which include:
    • pleading guilty to false reporting in 1995 in Boone County (withhold judgment)
    • pleading guilty to writing a bad check in 1999 in Boone County
    • terminated for cause in 1995 from Liberty Mutual with allegations that he filed a false insurance claim – and also noted that the Illinois Department of Unemployment Insurance ruled there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation
    • that Costanza’s 2008 application for insurance license in Wisconsin was denied for 31 days for failure to disclose the criminal convictions and for failing to disclose his termination for cause from Liberty Mutual
  • RMS Service Group issued a Letter of Termination to Costanza in 2011 (related to the $30,000 penalty from Illinois) accusing him of the following:
    • immediately terminating Costanza’s employment with RMS Service Group, effective January 27, 2011
    • that Costanza altered access to the Applied Systems TAM application, access to the phones, and changed company passwords at their insurance company databases
    • that Costanza opened an unauthorized business account at Poplar Grove State Bank
    • that Costanza conducted a mass deletion of emails without permission or authorization
    • that these actions were done following being confronted on January 15, 2011, with unauthorized disbursements made to [Costanza] and on Costanza’s behalf from the Premium Fund Trust Account maintained at National City Bank
    • that he was confronted with and asked to explain altered customer premiums that did not reconcile with insurance policies issued to said customers
    • that he formed RMS Insurance Services, Inc. on January 16, 2011, in Poplar Grove and that the RMS Service Group will make sure [Costanza] is held personally liable for any misappropriation of confidential information or trade secrets from it
    • that Costanza is no longer permitted to enter the premises of the company unless escorted by Rashid Sindhu

These are the two vastly differing explanations about his dealings with the State of Illinois Insurance Licensing regulators and his dealings with his past employer.

Just look at the timeline on his termination letter from his employer:

  • January 15, 2011 Costanza is confronted with certain evidence against him
  • January 16, 2011 Costanza starts a new company with a similar name as his current employer’s company
  • January 27, 2011 Costanza received the termination letter

Add to that, the State of Illinois Department of Insurance investigation against him, which ended with a $30,000 civil penalty and voluntary revocation of his Business Entity License. This investigation and resolution closely align with the Letter of Termination.

All we asked for was honest responses, and after further review, his response was far from honest.

We ask you, our readers, to click on the links provided and read the documents for yourselves.



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


No Comments

Post A Comment