Pending federal litigation
Van Der Werff & Vaughn v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Case No. 6:26-cv-00746-ECC-MJK
Why this site exists
We created this site to make our filed allegations and the public procedural record easier to understand. We believe the dispute should be evaluated through documents, testimony, and lawful court or arbitration procedures—not rumor, harassment, or a public rush to judgment.
The complaint, summarized
Every statement below is identified as an allegation because the merits have not been decided.
The Verified Complaint alleges that Bert J. van der Werff began working with Colonial/Paul Revere in or about 2014 and Timothy L. Vaughn Jr. in or about 2017, and that they spent years building business, employer relationships, commissions, and renewal streams.
Source: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 27-47.
The complaint alleges that the January 23, 2026 terminations followed accusations concerning the relationship between Armour Life Solutions and Colonial enrollment, as well as a dispute over cancellation language associated with Section 125 plans.
Source: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 1-13, 104-180.
The plaintiffs allege that enrollment records, employer correspondence, signed plan documents, training, and prior compliance communications contradicted or materially weakened the factual premise used to justify the terminations.
Source: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 57-103, 104-161, 208-235.
The complaint alleges losses involving current and future commissions, renewals, chargebacks, long-term book value, business relationships, professional standing, and earning capacity.
Source: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 162-273, 326-327.
What is—and is not—decided
The complaint asserts claims for defamation, injurious falsehood/business disparagement, tortious interference, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, and an accounting.
The defendants are entitled to contest every allegation and legal theory. No statement on this website should be read as a judicial finding, an admission by any defendant, or a prediction of the outcome.
See the detailed, sourced summaryA practical caution for producers
General due-diligence lessons from this dispute—not legal advice and not a claim that every producer will have the same experience.
Responsible public attention
Visitors may share this site or the public filings, but should not add accusations that are not in the record or present allegations as proven facts. Media, attorneys, and persons seeking to submit a factual correction may contact us.