The former vice president in charge of claims at Chubb, one of the largest property insurance providers in the world, has come forward saying that he was fired for voicing his concerns about the company’s illegal inner workings.

We’ve talked a bit about Chubb before and the issues within the company, but in the past few weeks some information has come to light that may tarnish the company’s stellar reputation.

on the matter, pointing out how Anthony Guerriero – the former vice president in charge of Chubb’s claims – says he was fired after he spoke up with concerns about certain documents that were going to be destroyed.

According to Cieri, Guerriero was very specific in his complaint:

He alleges that company officials disregarded legal department notices about preserving documentation and tapes, knowing the materials might contain relevant evidence.

He elaborates further, saying:

The legal department at Chubb sends out emails known as “litigation hold notices” which remind employees to preserve certain documents that are or can be subject to litigation. In November 2013, Guerriero received an email from his IT department which referenced deletion of files from the “Curtis claim.” Guerriero was aware that this claim was the subject of a litigation hold and that information related to the claim should not be deleted. Guerriero was allegedly told by a company lawyer this decision to destroy evidence was made by their legal department and that they would assume the risk that the destruction would not be discovered. Guerriero was later deposed in the Curtis claim and—according to the complaint—advised by Chubb’s lawyers not to volunteer any information, specifically about the tapes.

While it would not be surprising that an insurance company as large as Chubb would engage in such activities, there’s still the issue that if the claims are true, the company could find itself in legal hot water.

The worst part of this is the fact that the company has a good reputation. Chubb is known for working well with their policyholders, which is a rare trait among the bigger insurance companies.

As usual, the company has responded with “no comment.”

What do you think? What will be Chubb’s legal strategy on this controversy?