[Nameplate] Overcast ~ 52°F  
High: 57°F ~ Low: 46°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

Bainbridge insurance agent to be sentenced Jan. 25

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GREENCASTLE -- A Greencastle man who owned an insurance company in Bainbridge has pled guilty to one count of felony theft and will be sentenced on Jan. 25.

Bradley K. Buchanan, 44, was originally charged with one count of Class C felony corrupt business influence and four counts of Class D felony theft.

At a change of plea hearing Monday in Putnam Superior Court, Buchanan admitted to taking money from Putnam County business owner in May of 2006 for the purpose of starting an insurance policy. Buchanan admitted that he never started the policy, and allowed the business owner to believe she had insurance coverage for over a year when in fact she did not.

"Mr. Buchanan pled guilty to the theft count involving Setty Real Estate Co. as the victim," Putnam County Prosecutor Tim Bookwalter said. "Our other victims are either out-of-state or physically unable to testify due to illness."

Sentencing has been left up to the discretion of Judge Denny Bridges, who could impose a maximum prison sentence of three years. In court Monday, Bridges ordered a pre-sentence investigation, which will be conducted by a representative of Putnam County Adult Probation.

Buchanan was arrested on Nov. 12, 2009 as the result of a nearly yearlong investigation conducted by representatives from the Indiana State Police and the Indiana Department of Insurance. According to court documents, the investigation was launched after the Department of Insurance received several complaints against Buchanan's company, Buck Insurance.

The investigation revealed that Buchanan had taken payments from numerous customers, then never started their insurance policies. Court records said Buchanan went so far as to provide customers with fake policy numbers.

Buchanan's insurance license was suspended on Sept. 11, 2008. He incorporated Buck Insurance in 1991, and opened the company's Bainbridge office in 2008, court records said.

At the time his license was suspended by the IDOI, Buchanan claimed to not understand why he had been investigated. He said he was "blindsided."

Initially, Buchanan pled not guilty to all charges and his bond was set at $25,000 cash only.

On Nov. 18, 2009 Bridges reduced Buchanan's bond to $25,000 with 10 percent authorized, on the condition that Buchanan be hooked up to electronic home monitoring upon his release from jail.

Ten percent of Buchanan's bond was posted the next day. According to court records, Buchanan was released from home monitoring on Feb. 3.

The motion to set a change of plea hearing was filed by Buchanan's attorney, Darrell Felling, on June 14.

Buchanan has made restitution to the owner of Setty Real Estate, Felling said.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on bannergraphic.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

This crime is a drop in the bucket.

-- Posted by ProblemTransmission on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 5:33 AM

I love how our county has a habit that when you pay to get out of jail they still want a person incarcerated by placing them on home detention. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Secondly something that the procecutor nor the bannergraphic has mentioned is that Mr. Buchanan had not made restitution to the said victim, because she was repaid prior to the actual arrest when the error was brought to his attention. I do believe that business' such as this have to carry insurance for errors and ommitions which would protect both the insurance agent as well as the policy holder. This case has been totally blownout of context from the first day it was placed in the paper. Like many other readers this case is a bore and just because someone says something or some change in the status ends up in the paper again. Personnaly if I were him I would ask for a change of venue and take this to trial since the states victims were reimbursed prior to charges being filed which means there was technically no crime commited.

-- Posted by Oh My Goodness on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 7:39 AM

Evidently he was on home detention because the judge didn't believe $2,500 was anough of an incentive to keep him from fleeing.

The case is back in the paper because he pled guilty to the crime. Why shouldn't that be reported?

-- Posted by Clovertucky on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 4:33 PM

Lets see receiving stolen cars, a house full of hot guns, and heard he owes his ex insurance company about a 100k, that a court case he lost, and i'm sure their is more but he is a past county official so that should hold some merit!!!!!

-- Posted by tru story on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 6:11 PM

The main reason people are put on home detention and monitoring is that the county makes money doing so. It's the same for juvenile probation. Period. It is all about money. Why do you think the judges allow bond reductions in the form of 10% cash rather than surety. Ask anybody who has ever got out on 10% cash how much of the 10% they got back even though they made all of their court appointments etc.

-- Posted by exhoosier2 on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 11:17 PM

Wow tru story you sound like a disgruntled ex-wife or girlfriend. As you mention him being a past county official, I guess that is probably why thiscase is being blown out of proportion,as for hot guns I am sure if any of the guns were hot we would have already read about that.

-- Posted by Oh My Goodness on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 7:21 AM

It is a shame the press is not held accountable for reporting the truth, or all the facts. Their glorified regurgitation and speculation borderlines false reporting and defamation of character.

Tru story you seem to be well informed of his accusations. Lets look into "who" notified the dept of insurance/state police and "who" made the report alleging the stolen guns and "exactly" why the 100k ins case was lost. Only thing this guy is guilty of is a mistake both with an underwriter and the company he "kept" or should I say "got rid of"

-- Posted by reportthe truth on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:47 PM

Quick, someone steal from their company and get caught! The Banner needs some stories!

-- Posted by Sunflowermel on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 6:03 PM

Those of you still making positive comments about him obviosly believe all the lies he tells. Those of us who had the misfortune of dealing with him know the real story.

-- Posted by check the facts on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 8:00 AM

First off to OH MY GOODNESS. Sounds to me your talking about yourself trying to get out of something or make yourself sound good. It is what it is. If you read the article some people were unble to testify do to distance or illness. And even if the person was paid back theft is theft and I think there should be some restitution for those who thought they had insurance and didnt. And as for errors and ommition the IDOI reported he had none so there for noone was protected. As for other cases against Buchanan it is public record. As well as other cases Buchanan has against him which are many. Also him being on the council years ago and being arrested for theft of a car was public records as well as being in the paper. Its noones fault but his own. If you dont want to be in the public eye as a theif then follow the law. I believe only one person was repaid for his crime. So where is the other monies for the other victims. A crime is a crime. You play you pay. He hasnt paid enough. And I do believe he should be jailed just like all the others here in putnam county have done for heir crimes. Just saying!

-- Posted by karma54 on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 7:10 PM

Well "karma54"obviously you are either another ex or you work for the court system / law enforcement given your grammer and type"o's". As for what you had said abour him being me well you are wrong I have on many posts putmy name.So no i am not him. As far as I can tell when it comes to a criminal case and a charge by the police/prosecutor the charges are generally done by a per victim basis. In this case Mr Buchanan is being charged and pleading guilty to a crime that technically was not commited due to the fact that the said victim was re-paid prior to the charges being filed. As for the errors and ommitions policy I do not recall the IDOI saying such a thing. From what I know you cannot sell insurance from any underwriter WITHOUT that policy and they are very stearn about that for this exact reason.So karma54 go back under your rock and learn how to spell..

-- Posted by Oh My Goodness on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 2:01 PM

Oh My Goodness are we are seeing a disgruntled ex again arising as "several" people? Sounds familiar like the "several" complaints that the Dept of Insurance(IDOI)received. Someone needs to quit littering the Banner Graphic with more of her false reporting and disconcerted babbling.

-- Posted by reportthe truth on Mon, Dec 13, 2010, at 9:07 PM

Look the x is getting tired of people saying that she is posting things i know for a fact she has not posted a dang thing on this site. She is a better person than that for her childrens sake. I agree with her you need to know the facts before you start going and saying things about someone else. She is by far an disgruntle x and could care less about that x thief. How does she know because "I" am her!!!!!!!!!!! So you people need to stop talking about me as a disgruntle you don't even know me or who I am. You want to talk disgruntle look at the man who pled quilty and how he has treated his children. I know I have lived it first hand. SO GROW UP AND START LOOKING AT THE TRUE DEMON!

-- Posted by rooster70 on Mon, Dec 27, 2010, at 11:56 PM

AS for your comment OH My Goodness. I have proof, that he took my money orders for my car insurance and cashed them without paying for my insurance. Don't try to fight the comment my policy number and dates where on the orders. I have copies of all them. 5 months I drove around with no insurance. So yes he is guilty! But I did not push the issue because I know how the man works and to me "what goes around comes around" and believe me it will. I am just sitting back waiting:) Sounds to me like he has put you up to writing for him or this is him haha!

-- Posted by rooster70 on Tue, Dec 28, 2010, at 12:11 AM

Wow Rooster, u sure seem disgruntled to me. On the subject of children how is your child custody thing going. I am sure all of this legal crap is probably helpin you out huh. Certainly though I would ask yourself where does one of your kiddies really want to live. I would say with the father ,given the fact that your new boyfriend seems to not like your kids.

-- Posted by Oh My Goodness on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:32 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: