Insurers Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Utah Ruling in Landmark Punitive Damages Case
West News • September 2, 2004
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) have filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Utah's Landmark Punitive Damage case
Posted On: September 5, 2004, 12:14 pm CDT
Posted By: Robert
Comment:
First, Insurance Journal should state all of the facts regarding this accident. While it may have caused actual damages in the amount of $2,086, that must only represent the Property Damage. The crux of this case involved the fatality and severe permanent injury caused by the at fault driver insured by State Farm.
Secondly, the monumental award was generated by State Farm's initial handling of the claim - rejecting an offer by plaintiff to settle the claim for the $50,000 policy limits and allowing this case to go to trial. Furthermore, after an adverse jury verdict was returned and the at fault driver asked his defense attorney what to do, he was reportedly told to 'put a for sale sign on your house.' While the initial punitive award was outrageous and deservedly struck down, it is a shame that State Farm continues to contest this verdict. You reap what you sow.
West News 
Subject: RE: Utah's Landmark Punitive Damage case
Secondly, the monumental award was generated by State Farm's initial handling of the claim - rejecting an offer by plaintiff to settle the claim for the $50,000 policy limits and allowing this case to go to trial. Furthermore, after an adverse jury verdict was returned and the at fault driver asked his defense attorney what to do, he was reportedly told to 'put a for sale sign on your house.' While the initial punitive award was outrageous and deservedly struck down, it is a shame that State Farm continues to contest this verdict. You reap what you sow.