National News
Viewing comments for:
Study: Insurers' Customer Retention Critical in Hard Economic Times
National News • April 22, 2009
As millions of U.S. households face financial hardship in the current U.S. recession, retaining existing customers has never been more important.
For insurance carriers in terms of long-term ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
Apr 28, 2009, 8:59 am |
||
| RE: RE: : STATE FARM,S$13 Million Verdict for Denying Tornad | THE TRUTH | Apr 27, 2009, 5:43 pm |
| RE: : STATE FARM,S$13 Million Verdict for Denying Tornado Co | STEVE | Apr 27, 2009, 11:32 am |
| RE: RE: post was fictitious.retaining existing customers | Apr 26, 2009, 4:53 pm |
|
| RE: may be other cases where similar questions should be rai | bought and paid for the secrec | Apr 26, 2009, 4:46 pm |
| may be other cases where similar questions should be raised. | questions should be raised. | Apr 26, 2009, 4:44 pm |
| RE: The Reality | This brings us to the really | Apr 26, 2009, 4:35 pm |
| RE: The Reality | Apr 26, 2009, 4:30 pm |
|
| The Reality | Bernard | Apr 26, 2009, 2:12 pm |
| RE: : STATE FARM,S$13 Million Verdict for Denying Tornado Co | Verdict | Apr 26, 2009, 11:37 am |
| : STATE FARM,S$13 Million Verdict for Denying Tornado Covera | but will sell renters policies | Apr 26, 2009, 11:33 am |
| RE: RE: RE: STATE FARM,S principles-loyalty. | Bernard Rosauer | Apr 25, 2009, 11:49 am |
| RE: RE: STATE FARM,S principles | clown. | Apr 25, 2009, 11:29 am |
| RE: STATE FARM,S principles | (State Farm) defense counsel d | Apr 25, 2009, 11:19 am |
| RE: RE: STATE FARM,S principles-loyalty. | Penny wise, Pound foolish... | Apr 25, 2009, 11:15 am |
| RE: STATE FARM,S principles | Apr 24, 2009, 10:19 pm |
|
| STATE FARM,S principles | Is it privileged | Apr 24, 2009, 10:04 pm |
| www.evenbetteryet.com | Bernard Rosauer | Apr 24, 2009, 1:06 pm |
| RE: post was fictitious.retaining existing customers | judgmentjudgmentjudgment | Apr 24, 2009, 9:00 am |
| post was fictitious.retaining existing customers | how about retainingChief,S. | Apr 24, 2009, 8:58 am |
| April 23rd post was fictitious. | Bernard Rosauer | Apr 24, 2009, 12:18 am |
| www.evenbetteryet.com | Berny | Apr 23, 2009, 2:53 pm |
| Hmmm. | Bernard Rosauer | Apr 22, 2009, 8:38 pm |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: may be other cases where similar questions should be raised.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
DEBBIE FOLTZ, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., dba COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL REVIEW, and RALPH HOUSEHOLDER, Defendants.
No. CV-94-6293-HO
AMENDED
PROPOSED INTERVENORS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF FOLTZ'S AND DEFENDANT STATE FARM'S JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm's memorandum in opposition to intevenors' motion to intervene and motion to unseal is an astonishing document. First, State Farm does not contend or even attempt to argue that the sealing of the record in this case was legal. Instead, it attempts to justify the secrecy in this case on the sole basis it bought and paid for the secrecy. This argument is invalid under the law. Moreover, defendant attempts to further bolster this argument by pointing out that there are other cases in this Court and other courts that were similarly settled in secret and also apparently expunged from the public record. There may be other cases where similar questions should be raised.
A. Defendant's argument that unsealing the record would unravel the settlement in this case is without merit because the sealing provision and order are illegal and should not be enforced.
State Farm's