Florida woman charged for threatening health insurance company: ‘Delay, deny, depose’
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images/STOCK
(LAKELAND, Fla.) — A Florida woman was arrested and charged this week for ending a phone call with her health insurance provider with threats that mimicked wording associated with the suspected UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter.
The incident occurred Tuesday when Briana Boston, a 42-year-old woman from Lakeland, was speaking with a representative from Blue Cross Blue Shield after she had been told that her medical claim was denied.
In an arrest affidavit obtained by ABC News, police said that near the end of the recorded conversation with the insurance provider, Boston can be heard saying, “Delay, deny, depose. You people are next.”
Boston’s apparent threats nearly echo the words that were engraved on the bullet shell casings that authorities recovered from the scene where UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot earlier this month.
Those engraved words were “deny,” “defend” and “depose.”
However, Boston’s words do match the title of a 2010 book “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.”
The book was written by legal scholar and insurance expert Jay Feinman, a professor emeritus at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey. It explores abuses of auto and homeowners insurance to “avoid paying justified claims,” according to its summary.
Luigi Mangione is a suspect in the killing, which has catapulted the nation’s health care industry into the spotlight. Mangione faces second-degree murder and a slew of other charges in both Pennsylvania and New York.
When Lakeland Police confronted Boston about the perceived threats, she apologized and said that she “used those words because it’s what is in the news right now,” according to the arrest affidavit.
Boston told authorities she does not own any guns and is not a threat, but went on to say that health care companies “deserve karma” and that they are “evil,” according to the document.
“Boston further stated the health care companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil,” police said in the affidavit.
ABC News has reached out to Blue Cross Blue Shield for comment.
Following the investigation, Boston was charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism and booked at a jail in Polk County, according to police.
(CALIFORNIA) — The man who pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting a Northern California woman in a case that became known nationwide as the “Gone Girl” kidnapping has now been charged with other break-ins and assaults from years earlier, prosecutors announced on Monday.
Matthew Muller — who pleaded guilty in the 2015 kidnapping and sexual assault of Denise Huskins — has now been charged in connection with two other home invasions from 2009, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office said.
In the first attack, on Sept. 29, 2009, Muller allegedly broke into a woman’s home in Mountain View, tied her up, forced her drink a mix of medications and told her he was going to rape her, prosecutors said. The woman “persuaded him against it,” and Muller then allegedly suggested she get a dog and fled the scene, prosecutors said.
Weeks later, on Oct. 18, 2009, Muller allegedly broke into a home in Palo Alto, bound and gagged a woman and forced her to drink NyQuil, prosecutors said. “He then began to assault her, before being persuaded to stop,” prosecutors said. “Muller gave the victim crime prevention advice, then fled.”
Muller faces two felony counts of committing a sexual assault during a home invasion, prosecutors said.
Muller, who is currently in a federal prison in Arizona, is expected to be arraigned Monday.
On March 23, 2015, Muller broke into a home in Vallejo, where he drugged and tied up Huskins and her boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, prosecutors said.
He kidnapped Huskins and took her to a cabin in South Lake Tahoe, where he sexually assaulted her, prosecutors said.
Quinn went to the police, who started to consider him a suspect.
After two days held captive, Muller drove Huskins to Southern California and released her.
Once Huskins was freed, the couple was then accused of a hoax, and the case set off a media firestorm fueled by suggestions that the case mirrored the book and movie “Gone Girl.”
Muller was arrested for Huskins’ kidnapping in June 2015 when he was identified as a suspect in a home invasion in Dublin, California.
Muller pleaded guilty in 2016 to Huskins’ kidnapping and in 2022 to her sexual assaults, prosecutors said.
The case became the subject of the Netflix documentary “American Nightmare” released earlier this year.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LOS ANGELES) — The fires blazing through Los Angeles County are the latest unprecedented natural disaster likely amplified by our changing climate. In the weeks and months to come, climate attribution science will determine by just how much.
However, we do know that heavy rains, followed by drought and mixed with winds and low humidity created a perfect storm of conditions — just weeks after Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina’s Buncombe County, with fatal floods and landslides 400 miles from where the storm made landfall.
Experts say that extreme weather events worsened by climate change are knocking on the doors of people across the country, and local officials must proactively prepare their regions before their residents become the next victims of tragedy.
“One of the things that every local government, every city government, should be doing right now, and the cost is well worth it, is investing in very comprehensive climate risk assessments,” Albany Law School’s climate policy expert Cinnamon Carlarne told ABC News.
These risk assessments look at the potential harms facing a community, their exposure level and vulnerability to disaster — properly setting regions up to plan for and minimize the destruction a disaster can cause.
If lawmakers don’t take action, the toll — both in human life as well as economic damages — will only compound, according to Thomas Culhane, a professor of global sustainability at the University of South Florida.
“I’m frustrated that my now cousin’s home may be lost, and her family was in jeopardy, and my family is in jeopardy because there hasn’t been enough good dialogue about all the incredible solutions that we’ve had for thousands of years, for hundreds of years, for decades, some brand new,” Culhane told ABC News. “We’re not getting together and discussing and then implementing so people can see with their own eyes.”
Los Angeles County is no stranger to extreme weather events. But according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, seven of the 10 largest wildfires in California history have occurred since 2017.
A recent assessment of LA County’s risk and vulnerability found that it was likely that wildfire conditions such as drought, high winds and extreme heat would compound.
The report found that areas between “urbanized land and undeveloped wildland vegetation” often sit within high or very high fire hazard severity zone. Notably, these hazard zones include the regions where the Palisades and Eaton Fires are burning.
It said that 19% of residents live in “Very High Fire Severity Zones” and developers continue to build in these areas despite concerns. The report noted that builders of new housing or infrastructure in such areas must follow requirements that “limit the impacts of wildfire on these properties,” including fire-resistant roofing, improved attic ventilation, tempered glass for exterior windows and maintaining 100 feet of “defensible space” between their structure and nearby landscaping or wildlands.
According to an October 2024 draft Climate Vulnerability Assessment from the office of LA City Planning, officials and researchers took the risk assessment back to communities to garner feedback about the best ways to implement mitigation strategies and create resilient infrastructure that stands strong in the face of climate disasters.
The draft assessment highlighted potential solutions to prevent against wildfire damage.
This included enforcing zoning restrictions to prevent new development in regions with high wildfire risk; requiring building codes in high hazard areas to include the use of fire resistant materials; ensuring reliable water sources and road access for emergency vehicles; and the installation of backup power in strategic locations to maintain essential services during outages.
Additionally, the draft also noted plans to “strengthen power lines, utility poles, and communication networks in wildfire-prone areas to withstand fire impacts” and “create and maintain fire defensible space around structures and infrastructure.”
The draft also encourages the use of indigenous fire risk reduction practices, such as intentional burns. It also suggests that community members can take part by clearing potential wildfire fuel such as dry underbrush, as well as restoring native habitat and plants.
The LA County Office of Sustainability and the LA City Planning office has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment about the climate assessments.
“When you look into indigenous practices or local practices, you see people dealt with these extremes by developing systems and then we ignored them,” Culhane said. “We set up systems that were bound to fail.”
He continued, “If you took seriously the catastrophic potential … put the money in because then we don’t have to pay later. The recovery costs are huge.”
This doesn’t take into account the cost of human life — at least 24 people have been recorded to have died thus far, according to officials.
If cities around the country can uncover and address targeted and individualized potential climate resilience techniques, they can save lives, according to Cinnamon Carlarne.
“We’re committed to a certain level of warming going forward, simply because greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere, and we are not reducing our greenhouse gas emissions,” Carlarne said.
However, she argues, it’s vital to continue to do the work to ensure the climate does not worsen further and cause more damage.
“So you are starting to see, because the frequency and intensity of disasters is mounting, and the human and economic cost disasters are mounting, that more and more city and local governments are actually starting to engage in planning, to assess infrastructure and to create ways where they can learn from one another,” Carlarne said. “But we have more and more cities and local governments that are actually recognizing this is one of real, serious challenges for their government systems.”
(WASHINGTON) — A Republican president-elect pledges support for expansive tariffs as a means of protecting U.S. businesses and hamstringing global competitors.
That description may conjure up former President Donald Trump, but it also applies to Herbert Hoover, who led the country nearly a century ago during the onset of the Great Depression.
Within months of the stock market crash, Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a 1930 measure that increased tariffs for a broad swathe of imported goods. In response, several countries imposed retaliatory tariffs and trade plummeted. Many economists view the measure as a factor that exacerbated the nation’s economic downturn.
“A whole generation of Republicans and Democrats after World War II was very much conditioned against tariff hikes because of the experience of the 1930s. Now we have a new generation of leaders who are much more willing to pull the trigger on higher tariffs,” Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College and author of “Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression,” told ABC News.
Here’s what to know about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, its economic impact, and what its legacy means for tariffs promised by Trump, according to experts.
What is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act?
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act arrived at a moment of economic crisis.
As the stock market wobbled and financial panic took hold, Congress negotiated a set of tariff increases that initially aimed to protect U.S. farmers from foreign competition but ultimately extended to a wide range of manufactured goods.
The measure is named after its key supporters in Congress: Republican Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Republican Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon. It passed the Senate by a narrow margin of 44 to 42, and sailed through the House of Representatives by a vote of 264 to 147. Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into law in June 1930.
For products already facing tariffs, the law, on average, raised the import tax from 40% to nearly 60%, making for an increase of roughly 20 percentage points, Kris Mitchener, a professor of economics at Santa Clara University who studies Smoot-Hawley, told ABC News. It also significantly expanded the number of goods subject to a tariff, he added.
“It culminated in a more or less complete rewrite of the tariff schedule,” Mitchener said, referring to the nation’s tariff code.
What happened after Smoot-Hawley took effect, and did it cause the Great Depression?
The Smoot-Hawley tariffs set off a near-immediate trade war, in which several foreign nations responded to tariffs by slapping U.S. imports with taxes of their own.
For instance, Canada placed tariffs on 16 products that accounted for roughly a third of U.S. exports, according to a working paper co-authored by Mitchener in 2021. France and Spain both slapped taxes on imported American automobiles, a major U.S. industry.
“America’s trade partners responded by targeting U.S. exports,” Mitchener said. “The most important declines were in the products that were targeted.”
As a result, trading partners suffered reduced output, but so did the United States, Michener said.
The trade slowdown weakened the economy and exacerbated the nation’s economic downturn, experts said. However, the Great Depression had taken hold before the effects of Smoot-Hawley, ruling it out as a cause of the crisis, they added.
“Smoot-Hawley impacted the U.S. economy at a vulnerable moment,” Irwin said.
What could the legacy of Smoot-Hawley mean for Trump’s tariff proposals?
Smoot-Hawley cast a shadow over tariff policy for decades, Irwin said. “It gave tariffs a bad name,” he added.
For decades, prominent members of both major parties focused on the risks posed by tariffs, occasionally citing Smoot-Hawley, Irwin said.
“The Smoot-Hawley tariff ignited an international trade war and helped sink our country into the Great Depression,” then-president Ronald Reagan said during a radio address in 1986.
The measure also played a key role in shifting tariff authority from Congress toward the executive branch, since lawmakers sought a speedy way to roll back the tariffs, experts said.
In 1934, the Reciprocal Tariffs Act gave the president the power to increase or reduce tariff levels by up to 50%. A series of subsequent laws helped shift additional tariff authority to the president.
“Now, Congress doesn’t have much to do with setting tariffs,” Irwin said.
On the campaign trail, Trump said he could enact tariffs without support from Congress. He is largely accurate in his description of the wide latitude enjoyed by the president in setting and implementing some tariffs, experts previously told ABC News.
“Trump is using the delegated powers to pass tariffs,” Irwin said. “That’s completing the circle of Smoot-Hawley in some sense.”
