Last time I checked, neither post traumatic stress syndrome nor depression was cured by money. But then we all know it’s never about the money. So why is she hunting for more? It would be interesting to know what her state of mental health was prior to the accident. Bad things happen everyday. People need to deal with them and get on with their own life.
Although I feel for this person, money will not bring her mother back. I feel she was entitled to the $500,000 that she received but enough is enough. No wonder this world is in the shape it’s in. Everything involves a lawsuit!!
Guess she doesn’t want to spend any part of the more than the first $500,000 on counseling. A second half mil should cure her right up. Oh, and I guess the existing laws of the state don’t count for much any more either.
We all regret the death of loved ones, but don’t put all the blame on the bereaved relative. Some, certainly, but don’t forget the ever-reaching and over-reaching lawyer behind the lawsuit, and the “Justices” on the “Supremes” Court that came up with this new “right” to money damages. Also save some anger for the social-progressive attitudes that everybody is entitled to something, but have no personal responsibilities. Suck it up and get on with the bad things in life.
No, we can put it on the relative. Just because the lawyers want to sue for whatever reason doesn’t mean the relative had to agree with them. She has her own mind and should use it to make money in a more honest fashion. I’m sure the other driver was stressed as well for the actions that took place that day so who will they sue for that??????? America- home of the law suits and the lazy. $500,000 was more than enough. If someone was really stressed they wouldn’t want to keep putting more stress on themselves by reliving the event in court.
The other driver will sue the auto manufacturer; the state – for issuing her a license, registering her vehicle, maintaining the roads, etc; the gal suing her; all the lawyers involved, her clergy and the local McDonalds. I don’t know why those last two will be involved, but they probably will be.
This is a money grab and the judges need to uphold the law of the land, not make new law.
How Sad!! To lose someone you love so much and to witness it! Do any of you have a thinking cap on your head? Have you ever been in an accident where lives were lost or humans severly injured? With you comment it is no wonder that we see the insurance industry in such a screwed up mess. Maybe if you could all walk a mile in someone elses shoes. I pray to God that none of you will ever be my agent! Do you even remember why you got into this business? Oh yeah, let me guess, to line your pockets. Maybe you ought to be kind and send this lady some flowers and touch her heart. There’s a real fact of life for you.
well you please tell me what body of fact .TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients
I clearly stated, for anyone objective and intelligent enough to read, that WE ALL DO CARE for the survivors. I addressed the real problems created by the make-money lawyers, who SELL THE SURVIVORS on the BIG MONEY they can get. And the problem of overly liberal judges who use their appointed or elected positions to MAKE LAWS that are the province of the legislatures. THESE are the facts of life.
Jablonowska’s Honda Civic to visit family in Wallington. Baczewska was seated in the front passenger seat. While
proceeding northbound on Route 21 in Newark, Jablonowska’s vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven
by David Suther. The impact caused Jablonowska’s Civic to crash into a concrete balustrade, causing Jablonowska
to temporarily lose consciousness. When she regained awareness, she noticed pain in her head, leg and chest.
Jablonowska also heard her mother moaning and calling for help. Once she was able to turn herself around toward
the passenger side, Jablonowska observed that her mother’s head was slumped forward and she was not moving. A
distraught Jablonowska, suspecting that her mother was seriously injured, exited her car to get assistance.
Jablonowska “was in shock” and “trembling all over” as she responded to a police officer’s questions about
the accident. She and her mother were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Jablonowska was treated and released.
Baczewska sustained fractures of her back, neck and ribs. In addition, the force of the collision partially severed her
aorta, causing her to bleed into her thoracic cavity and resulting in her death.
Jablonowska sued David and Teresa Suther (hereinafter, Suther) for claims of emotional distress (based
on witnessing her mother’s severe injuries and death), wrongful death and survivorship. To support her emotionaldistress
claim, Jablonowska sought to demonstrate that, after her mother’s death, she experienced “frequent crying,
headaches, palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, [and] tingling and numbness
in her extremities.” She also suffered from nightmares and flashbacks of the accident. Her appetite decreased, and
her memory and concentration became impaired. Three months after the accident, she began psychotherapy and
eventually was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
Jablonowska’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was based on the cause of action recognized
in Portee. In her complaint, Jablonowska alleged that Suther’s negligent operation of his motor vehicle caused her to
experience the psychological trauma of witnessing her mother’s injuries and subsequent death at the accident scene,
resulting in her severe mental impairment. Suther moved for dismissal of the Portee claim after Jablonowska failed
to produce a physician’s certification within sixty days of the filing of Suther’s answer, as required by AICRA’s
verbal threshold provision. Jablonowska argued that the physician’s certification and bodily injury threshold
requirements did not apply to her emotional-distress claim. Concluding that the verbal threshold requirement
applied, the trial court dismissed the emotional-distress claim for failure to satisfy the physician-certification
requirement and for failure to produce objective evidence of permanent bodily injury. A motion for reconsideration
was denied. A subsequent motion to submit Jablonowska’s doctor’s certification was denied. Because Suther
conceded liability, a three-day trial was held and was limited to the issue of damages for the wrongful death and
survivorship claims. The jury returned a verdict of $205,018 for the wrongful death claim and $350,000 for the
survivorship claims. The court denied Suther’s motion for a new trial.
2
Suther appealed, arguing that Jablonowska failed to present sufficient evidence to support a wrongful death
claim; that the trial court erred when charging the jury; that the damages award was excessive; and that
Jablonowska’s attorney’s misconduct warranted a new trial. Jablonowska cross-appealed, arguing that her Portee
claim should not have been dismissed. The Appellate Division rejected all of Suther’s claims and affirmed the
dismissal of Jablonowska’s Portee claim. The panel concluded that the verbal threshold’s requirements applied to
her Portee claim, that emotional distress is not enough to carry her over the threshold, and that she otherwise failed
to demonstrate objective clinical evidence of permanent injury required to maintain a cause of action governed by
the verbal threshold.
The Supreme Court granted certification.
HELD: Jablonowska’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, fashioned on the liability theory set out in
Portee v, Jaffee, is independent of the requirements
Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
State Farm Insurance’s chairman and CEO received an 82 percent raise after the company posted a record profit last year, a statement from the Bloomington-Ill.-based insurer said this week.
Advertisement
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ed Rust Jr. got a $5.26 million raise. He earned $11.66 million in 2006 with a base salary of $1.77 million and results-based bonus of $9.89 million, the statement said. Rust made $6.4 million in 2005 and $5.5 million in 2004.
The absence of a major catastrophe helped the insurer generate a record $5.32 billion profit last year, compared to $3.24 billion in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast, release said.
It amazes me how compassionate people can be when doling out someone else’s money; the judges, the attorneys already have good paying jobs so it’s easy to feel sad for someone’s loss and try to help soothe their senses. Tell me why $500,000 was not enough? That is what the insurance company underwrote and that is what the legal contracts specified to all parties of that contract. How can expanding coverge for unintended events make this lady whole? I don’t care if she was tramatized; I’ve lived with trauma since birth but never thought that anyone OWED me anything. Supposedly there is nothing free in life, not even a cold bowl of soup. Apparently that’s changing….when do I collect???
Ah, but Nobody, haven’t you been listening to them? This person is telling us all very important stuff that we need to know so we can . . . so we can . . . I’m not sure why he or she is doing it other than to annoy us. I know we’ve been exhorted to google a lawsuit and so forth, but I’m not sure exactly what this person wants.
Hey, no name, pick a screen name, stick with it and stay on topic. Or at least stay tangential to the topic. At the very least give us a break from your near-constant cutting and pasting of whatever it is you are cutting and pasting.
I apologize for the interruption; we will now return to your regularly scheduled diatribe.
Boring, aren’t they. State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients
Her claim may have merit. She may really be suffering because of the accident.
But other lawsuits like this have made me so jaded I’m prone to suspect greed more often than I assume someone has honestly suffered a loss.
Sad.
Last time I checked, neither post traumatic stress syndrome nor depression was cured by money. But then we all know it’s never about the money. So why is she hunting for more? It would be interesting to know what her state of mental health was prior to the accident. Bad things happen everyday. People need to deal with them and get on with their own life.
Although I feel for this person, money will not bring her mother back. I feel she was entitled to the $500,000 that she received but enough is enough. No wonder this world is in the shape it’s in. Everything involves a lawsuit!!
Guess she doesn’t want to spend any part of the more than the first $500,000 on counseling. A second half mil should cure her right up. Oh, and I guess the existing laws of the state don’t count for much any more either.
We all regret the death of loved ones, but don’t put all the blame on the bereaved relative. Some, certainly, but don’t forget the ever-reaching and over-reaching lawyer behind the lawsuit, and the “Justices” on the “Supremes” Court that came up with this new “right” to money damages. Also save some anger for the social-progressive attitudes that everybody is entitled to something, but have no personal responsibilities. Suck it up and get on with the bad things in life.
No, we can put it on the relative. Just because the lawyers want to sue for whatever reason doesn’t mean the relative had to agree with them. She has her own mind and should use it to make money in a more honest fashion. I’m sure the other driver was stressed as well for the actions that took place that day so who will they sue for that??????? America- home of the law suits and the lazy. $500,000 was more than enough. If someone was really stressed they wouldn’t want to keep putting more stress on themselves by reliving the event in court.
The other driver will sue the auto manufacturer; the state – for issuing her a license, registering her vehicle, maintaining the roads, etc; the gal suing her; all the lawyers involved, her clergy and the local McDonalds. I don’t know why those last two will be involved, but they probably will be.
This is a money grab and the judges need to uphold the law of the land, not make new law.
How Sad!! To lose someone you love so much and to witness it! Do any of you have a thinking cap on your head? Have you ever been in an accident where lives were lost or humans severly injured? With you comment it is no wonder that we see the insurance industry in such a screwed up mess. Maybe if you could all walk a mile in someone elses shoes. I pray to God that none of you will ever be my agent! Do you even remember why you got into this business? Oh yeah, let me guess, to line your pockets. Maybe you ought to be kind and send this lady some flowers and touch her heart. There’s a real fact of life for you.
well you please tell me what body of fact .TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders
I addressed the real
Oh, and I guess the existing laws of the state don’t count for much any more either.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients
I clearly stated, for anyone objective and intelligent enough to read, that WE ALL DO CARE for the survivors. I addressed the real problems created by the make-money lawyers, who SELL THE SURVIVORS on the BIG MONEY they can get. And the problem of overly liberal judges who use their appointed or elected positions to MAKE LAWS that are the province of the legislatures. THESE are the facts of life.
Jablonowska’s Honda Civic to visit family in Wallington. Baczewska was seated in the front passenger seat. While
proceeding northbound on Route 21 in Newark, Jablonowska’s vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle driven
by David Suther. The impact caused Jablonowska’s Civic to crash into a concrete balustrade, causing Jablonowska
to temporarily lose consciousness. When she regained awareness, she noticed pain in her head, leg and chest.
Jablonowska also heard her mother moaning and calling for help. Once she was able to turn herself around toward
the passenger side, Jablonowska observed that her mother’s head was slumped forward and she was not moving. A
distraught Jablonowska, suspecting that her mother was seriously injured, exited her car to get assistance.
Jablonowska “was in shock” and “trembling all over” as she responded to a police officer’s questions about
the accident. She and her mother were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Jablonowska was treated and released.
Baczewska sustained fractures of her back, neck and ribs. In addition, the force of the collision partially severed her
aorta, causing her to bleed into her thoracic cavity and resulting in her death.
Jablonowska sued David and Teresa Suther (hereinafter, Suther) for claims of emotional distress (based
on witnessing her mother’s severe injuries and death), wrongful death and survivorship. To support her emotionaldistress
claim, Jablonowska sought to demonstrate that, after her mother’s death, she experienced “frequent crying,
headaches, palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, [and] tingling and numbness
in her extremities.” She also suffered from nightmares and flashbacks of the accident. Her appetite decreased, and
her memory and concentration became impaired. Three months after the accident, she began psychotherapy and
eventually was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
Jablonowska’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was based on the cause of action recognized
in Portee. In her complaint, Jablonowska alleged that Suther’s negligent operation of his motor vehicle caused her to
experience the psychological trauma of witnessing her mother’s injuries and subsequent death at the accident scene,
resulting in her severe mental impairment. Suther moved for dismissal of the Portee claim after Jablonowska failed
to produce a physician’s certification within sixty days of the filing of Suther’s answer, as required by AICRA’s
verbal threshold provision. Jablonowska argued that the physician’s certification and bodily injury threshold
requirements did not apply to her emotional-distress claim. Concluding that the verbal threshold requirement
applied, the trial court dismissed the emotional-distress claim for failure to satisfy the physician-certification
requirement and for failure to produce objective evidence of permanent bodily injury. A motion for reconsideration
was denied. A subsequent motion to submit Jablonowska’s doctor’s certification was denied. Because Suther
conceded liability, a three-day trial was held and was limited to the issue of damages for the wrongful death and
survivorship claims. The jury returned a verdict of $205,018 for the wrongful death claim and $350,000 for the
survivorship claims. The court denied Suther’s motion for a new trial.
2
Suther appealed, arguing that Jablonowska failed to present sufficient evidence to support a wrongful death
claim; that the trial court erred when charging the jury; that the damages award was excessive; and that
Jablonowska’s attorney’s misconduct warranted a new trial. Jablonowska cross-appealed, arguing that her Portee
claim should not have been dismissed. The Appellate Division rejected all of Suther’s claims and affirmed the
dismissal of Jablonowska’s Portee claim. The panel concluded that the verbal threshold’s requirements applied to
her Portee claim, that emotional distress is not enough to carry her over the threshold, and that she otherwise failed
to demonstrate objective clinical evidence of permanent injury required to maintain a cause of action governed by
the verbal threshold.
The Supreme Court granted certification.
HELD: Jablonowska’s negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, fashioned on the liability theory set out in
Portee v, Jaffee, is independent of the requirements
State Farm CEO Gets 82% Pay Raise
March 7, 2007
Send Feedback E-mail this Article Print this Article Article Reprints
State Farm Insurance’s chairman and CEO received an 82 percent raise after the company posted a record profit last year, a statement from the Bloomington-Ill.-based insurer said this week.
Advertisement
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ed Rust Jr. got a $5.26 million raise. He earned $11.66 million in 2006 with a base salary of $1.77 million and results-based bonus of $9.89 million, the statement said. Rust made $6.4 million in 2005 and $5.5 million in 2004.
The absence of a major catastrophe helped the insurer generate a record $5.32 billion profit last year, compared to $3.24 billion in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast, release said.
It amazes me how compassionate people can be when doling out someone else’s money; the judges, the attorneys already have good paying jobs so it’s easy to feel sad for someone’s loss and try to help soothe their senses. Tell me why $500,000 was not enough? That is what the insurance company underwrote and that is what the legal contracts specified to all parties of that contract. How can expanding coverge for unintended events make this lady whole? I don’t care if she was tramatized; I’ve lived with trauma since birth but never thought that anyone OWED me anything. Supposedly there is nothing free in life, not even a cold bowl of soup. Apparently that’s changing….when do I collect???
Don’t you just wish Mr/Ms State Farm hater/no name would just give the cutting and pasting a rest? Boring, aren’t they?
Ah, but Nobody, haven’t you been listening to them? This person is telling us all very important stuff that we need to know so we can . . . so we can . . . I’m not sure why he or she is doing it other than to annoy us. I know we’ve been exhorted to google a lawsuit and so forth, but I’m not sure exactly what this person wants.
Hey, no name, pick a screen name, stick with it and stay on topic. Or at least stay tangential to the topic. At the very least give us a break from your near-constant cutting and pasting of whatever it is you are cutting and pasting.
I apologize for the interruption; we will now return to your regularly scheduled diatribe.
Boring, aren’t they. State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients
what this person wants.
YOU TO ALL WAKE UP!!!!!!!