Did HSUS Mislead its Insurance Company or a Federal Court?*

The*Humane*Society*of the United States (HSUS) is still*facing blowback from the more than decade-long litigation drama involving several animal rights group, including*HSUS, and their alleged racketeering scheme against Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus.*The latest issue? Whether*HSUS*misled its insurance company—or a federal court.

As*readers*may recall, a cohort of animal-liberation extremists sued Feld Entertainment, alleging elephant abuse, and lost. Adding insult to injury, however, was the ensuing*countersuit.*The court found that the activist’s key witness—a former circus employee who lied under oath—had been paid almost $200,000*by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, prompting Feld to bring a federal*RICO*lawsuit against the animal extremists.

While*HSUS*was not involved in initially bringing the*animal-rights lawsuit*against Feld in 2000, the group*merged*with the Fund*for Animals*(FFA)—one of the original plaintiffs—in 2005 while the litigation was ongoing. Usually,*HSUS*has no problem*taking credit*for the work of its affiliates—except, apparently, when this affiliation*involves*a federal RICO lawsuit. With racketeering*allegations*on the table,*HSUS*was quick to distance itself from*the Fund*for*Animals, insisting that the 2005 marriage did not qualify as a merger.

According to HSUS CEO Wayne “I don’t love*animals” Pacelle, FFA was separate from*HSUS, with “its own board of directors and its own donors.” HSUS*filed a motion to dismiss the RICO*suit*on this premise of*organizational*separation.*According to court records,*HSUS*argued*that while it “join[ed] forces in a corporate combination” with FFA, the two organizations did*not*merge*and therefore*HSUS*wasn’t liable*for any of the allegations. (Never mind, of course, that at least one payment to the witness was made on an*HSUS*check.)

Before the suit progressed to trial,*HSUS*joined the other animal radicals in forking over a combined $15.75*million*to*settle the litigation,*covering*Feld’s legal fees incurred by the “frivolous and vexatious” 14-year crusade.

HSUS*released a*statement*responding to the multi-party settlement, explaining: “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to The*HSUS*and The Fund*for*Animals*will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from The HSUS*will go to Feld.”

One problem:*HSUS*was denied*insurance coverage.*The solution? Evidently, yet another lawsuit:*HSUS*sued its insurance provider. But now, it looks like three times won’t be a charm*for*HSUS.

National Union Insurance Co.—which*denied*HSUS’s request*for*coverage—has filed*a motion*for*summary judgment in the*suit*brought by*HSUS. Its motion*sheds*light on new evidence of glaring factual discrepancies in HSUS’s claims.

A December 2005 insurance application*disclosed as an exhibit in the motion*asked whether*HSUS*had merged with any other organization in the past ten years.*HSUS*answered “yes” and identified the Fund*for*Animals*as the organization and “1/1/05” as the date of the transaction. The application was signed by Wayne Pacelle, and contained a representation that “the statements set forth herein are true.”

To recap,*HSUS*told a federal court*that*HSUS*and FFA did not merge in 2005. Now, evidence shows that*HSUS*separately $#@!erted that*HSUS*and FFA*did*merge.

By all accounts, there seems to be just two possible explanations:*HSUS*either*misled*the court, or*misled its insurer. Maybe the several dozen lawyers on*HSUS’s staff can try to make a “depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is* is” argument, but it seems likely to us that*HSUS*made the argument to the court because it was more convenient than intellectually honest.

Ethics apparently isn’t a priority at*HSUS. After all, this is a group that uses cats and dogs to bring in millions of dollars despite not running a single pet shelter. When will they finally be held accountable?





More from HumaneWatch...

Did HSUS Mislead its Insurance Company or a Federal Court?*