West News Viewing comments for:
State Farm Faces Class Action Lawsuit
West News • May 15, 2008
A class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court, Central District, alleging that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is enriching itself with payments rightfully belonging to its ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: Shame on IJ for printing this!!! | Ivy | May 22, 2008, 5:39 pm |
| Only in Calif | UDT | May 21, 2008, 1:44 pm |
| RE: EF | May 18, 2008, 11:43 pm |
|
| EF | May 18, 2008, 11:42 pm |
|
| State Farm | gary | May 17, 2008, 5:49 am |
| RE: Shame | Kevin Kennedy | May 16, 2008, 12:09 pm |
| RE: Shame | Walter Jones | May 16, 2008, 11:16 am |
| RE: Subro claims | clms | May 16, 2008, 8:11 am |
| RE: RE: ShameState Farm seems to have reckless indifference | May 16, 2008, 12:55 am |
|
| RE: Shame | May 16, 2008, 12:52 am |
|
| Shame | May 16, 2008, 12:49 am |
|
| Only In California | Dread | May 15, 2008, 2:23 pm |
| Subro claims | Kevin Kennedy | May 15, 2008, 1:42 pm |
| RE: next time... | Bill | May 15, 2008, 1:37 pm |
| next time... | Joe Blow | May 15, 2008, 1:30 pm |
| Car rental class action in California | rdc | May 15, 2008, 1:23 pm |
| RE: its always been that way, nothing has changed, | ben around 4awhile | May 15, 2008, 1:12 pm |
| RE: RE: Shame on IJ for printing this!!! | Mr. Obvious | May 15, 2008, 12:57 pm |
| RE: RE: Shame on IJ for printing this!!! | matt | May 15, 2008, 12:52 pm |
| RE: Shame on IJ for printing this!!! | Sheep Herder | May 15, 2008, 10:34 am |
| whats the benefit? | hmm | May 15, 2008, 9:55 am |
| Shame on IJ for printing this!!! | Matt | May 15, 2008, 8:33 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: RE: Shame on IJ for printing this!!!
According to the IJ's source i.e. the attorney bringing suit.... of course the attorney suing them is going to provide information in support of his case.
Now perhaps the IJ DID contact State Farm (doesn't mention that they did), and State Farm may have replied with the standard "We do not comment on ongoing litigation" therefore giving up their opportunity to include their side of this story.
I don't think they should be improperly profiting from the policyholders, and I am not familiar with the "make whole" rule in CA.
But, if his policy clearly stated his obligation was 20% of the rental fees, then why shouldn't the $70 collected by State Farm in this example be considered as a partial subrogation against the at-fault party's carrier?