Missouri Jury Tells State Farm to Pay Up
By Dave Thomas
September 5, 2005
A Kansas City jury recently had some bad news for one of the nation\’s top insurers in deliberations that reportedly took less than six hours. The message to State Farm–pay up.
Five former State Farm Ins-urance agents were awarded $20 million by the jury that decided the agents were improperly terminated for being critical of the way the insurer reportedly treated its policyholders.
Tana Glockner, Joseph J. Kelly, Clifford F. Lykke, Michael Lee Morgan and Lee P. Saghirian, whose contracts were terminated in January 2000, were awarded $9 million in actual damages and $11 million in punitive damages. The five, who reportedly had more than 100 years of collective experience with State Farm, had spoken out in the fall of 1999 against the company, saying there was a need for change in State Farm\’s management structure.
In late 1999, the five agents gave permission to use their names in a letter to the Texas insurance commissioner that was critical of State Farm\’s treatment of policyholders.
Among the allegations were that the insurer charged extra for homeowners insurance, tried to defraud accident victims from full compensation and permitted sales discrimination to occur at the company. Glockner and Morgan had already given permission for their names to be signed to a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee and had participated in a Washington news conference.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs noted that at the heart of the Missouri case, was determining whether the insurer could fire an agent for going public to protect policyholder interests. He added that during the mid-1990s, there were a number of verdicts and settlements in which the insurer was discovered to have treated policyholders unfairly in a variety of different ways.
State Farm Director of External Relations, Phil Supple, told Insurance Journal that the company was obviously disappointed with the jury\’s decision. \”We believe our actions were appropriate, and we do not believe the verdict is supported by the evidence presented at trial,\” Supple said. \”We will reflect on the verdict and explore our options.\”
State Farm investigates the claim, then turns it over to the NICB, which further investigats the claim. It is then given to the state, where after review by a state\’s attorney, charges are filed.
I can testify that these 2 are \”pillars of the community\”. It was strictly coincidental that she was talking about mojor engine problems before the crime occurred. it was also coincidental that in the low crime community that this vehicle was stolen and then burned.
As a state farm policyholder I think it\’s only fair that I get to pay more so that these 2 pillars of the community get to live comfortably until the money runs out.
So, if State Farm and the NICB acted in good faith, why wasn\’t their reporting of the matter to the state, who was the party that actually filed the criminal charges, subject to some sort of qualified immunity?
Did the jury actually believe that State Farm, the NICB, and the state were all acting in bad faith?
I don\’t see how this can be true. The State filed charges, not State Farm. How can the Ins. Co. be held responsible for malicious prosecution when they have no standing to prosecute anyone?? I\’m also sure that the \”sister in law\” is a little more than that to Mr. Vail.
That\’s no excuse for what appears to be such a travesty. Besides, as a mutual company, that \”pocket change\” comes out of the pockets of the policyholders, and not the corporation.
Court rooms are not a lottery system to riches, although after many injustices such as this-I am beginning to wonder.
Staged or not-what harm is done? The only legally binding remedy is to enforce the replacement of the vehicle per policy provisions…THAT IS ALL!! If the STATE believes it has a case it has every right to pursue. The \’couple\’ involved won their case and story complete.
Since when should an award be based on size of company being sued??? How about the actual amount of harm??? How about State Farm being removed from these legal proceedings completely???
Hold on a second…it may be my turn soon at the LOTTERY…don\’t change anything yet!!! Just kidding on the last sentence.
This is just another example of State Farm finding a reason not to pay a claim and it backfired on them when the insured took them to Court! They did NOT have enough physical evidence to warrant charging the insureds with FRAUD – they should have just paid the claim and saved themselves 8 Million Dollars!
State Farm as a 5 time loser may need to take concern that their actions by their claims management may in the future be considered to be a \”General Practice of Business\”.
Did not State Farm have both civil and a criminal trials on this issue and State Farm lost both times after having had a chance to present their case.
Two separate juries didn\’t believe State Farm.
Did \”State Farm followed proper procedure\”?
And yes I do believe companies have corporate cultures and past events should matter in these cases.
Mr. MUD You state:
\”It is not the responsibility of Insurance companies to pay EVERY claim,\” NO ONLY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS!
AND
\”there is much fraud and they have the legal right [and duty] to verify claims\”
The amount of fraud \’estimated\’ by the insurance industry has been grossly exaggerated and while insurers have a legal right to verify claims and a \’duty to defend\’ policy holders.
But \’knowingly\’ providing false information should result in criminal charges to the insurers\’ employees at all levels of a company involved.
Unfortunately our nation\’s State insurance commissioners\’, the NAIC, and our courts seem unprepared or unwilling to truthfully uphold the laws of our nation as they are written.
Reporting insurance fraud – even if done in bad faith – SHOULD NOT BE protected.
——————————
FEAR NOT WHEN REPORTING INSURANCE FRAUD
Reporting insurance fraud – even if done in bad faith – is protected, according to Fremont Compensation Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Gopinath) 44 Cal.App.4th 867 (1996). The protection of California Civil Code §47, which provides absolute immunity for a report to the police, has been found to extend to insurance companies.
Insurance Code §1877.5 affords insurers only qualified immunity in reporting insurance fraud to the District Attorney or Department of Insurance, and only applies to reports made in good faith. This section limits immunity to reports made without malice and exempts insurers from \”any civil liability in a cause of action of any kind where the insurer … acts in good faith, without malice, and reasonably believes that the action taken was warranted by the then-known facts\”.
However, insurers are no longer limited to qualified immunity, and no longer to reports made only in good faith. Absolute immunity fosters \”utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing\”, which when balanced, outweighs the \”occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual\”. (See Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48.) However, any defamed individual retains the remedy of malicious prosecution against the prosecuting government agency.
Freedom of communication between victims of crime and law enforcement agencies is particularly important in the insurance industry because costs of crime are borne by all consumers, employees, and businesses in the form of higher rates. \”Insurers and their policyholders ultimately pay the cost of fraudulent insurance claims\”, as noted in Insurance Code §1875.10(b).
This case, then, extends absolute immunity to claims made even in bad faith. It concluded that Civil Code §47 gives everybody, including insurers, the right to report crimes to the police, the local prosecutor, or the appropriate regulatory agency, even if the report is made in bad faith.
—————————
Mr. MUD,
We all deserve \’equal protection under the law\’, even insurance companies.
Mr. MUD,
If you would like to have a civil discussion of whether \”No harm is done\” to falsely accused innocent individuals I am more than prepared to discuss this issue with you.
AND Mr. MUD,
Please Remember the only thing this industry has to sell is trust!
A Kansas City jury recently had some bad news for one of the nation\’s top insurers in deliberations that reportedly took less than six hours. The message to State Farm–pay up.
Five former State Farm Ins-urance agents were awarded $20 million by the jury that decided the agents were improperly terminated for being critical of the way the insurer reportedly treated its policyholders.
Tana Glockner, Joseph J. Kelly, Clifford F. Lykke, Michael Lee Morgan and Lee P. Saghirian, whose contracts were terminated in January 2000, were awarded $9 million in actual damages and $11 million in punitive damages. The five, who reportedly had more than 100 years of collective experience with State Farm, had spoken out in the fall of 1999 against the company, saying there was a need for change in State Farm\’s management structure.
In late 1999, the five agents gave permission to use their names in a letter to the Texas insurance commissioner that was critical of State Farm\’s treatment of policyholders.
Among the allegations were that the insurer charged extra for homeowners insurance, tried to defraud accident victims from full compensation and permitted sales discrimination to occur at the company. Glockner and Morgan had already given permission for their names to be signed to a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee and had participated in a Washington news conference.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs noted that at the heart of the Missouri case, was determining whether the insurer could fire an agent for going public to protect policyholder interests. He added that during the mid-1990s, there were a number of verdicts and settlements in which the insurer was discovered to have treated policyholders unfairly in a variety of different ways.
State Farm Director of External Relations, Phil Supple, told Insurance Journal that the company was obviously disappointed with the jury\’s decision. \”We believe our actions were appropriate, and we do not believe the verdict is supported by the evidence presented at trial,\” Supple said. \”We will reflect on the verdict and explore our options.\”
Past problems have nothing to do with this case…AT ALL. State Farm had some credible witnesses and sent info to State for prosecution, State prosecuted and lost. No harm done. State Farm followed proper procedure. It is not the responsibility of Insurance companies to pay EVERY claim, there is much fraud and they have the legal right to verify claims. All Insurance companies are required to pay only LEGITIMATE claims. So because State Farm followed proper procedures they have to pay $8 million. The fraud exist in court rooms with lawyers and juries and judges. Any judge can execute a different verdict than what a jury decides due to evidence suggesting something different than what the jury decided. In this case this is precisely what should have been done!
Insurance companies are part of this great economy we have in the U.S. They have helped millions of families and businesses rebuild after tragic events, and will contiinue to do so unless the justice system in this country has its way!!!!!!
Because a jury says someone is guilty or non-guilty…does not make it so. Witnesses testified to the statements claimants made, a prosecuter filed charges based on an examination of evidence against this couple. Prosecuters do not like to lose, so if they thought case was not strong enough they would have walked.
ABSOLUTELY NO HARM!!!!!
I notice you quote California cases, which when appealed to Federal Supreme Court are overturned. California is a state of communistic government where business is considered bad and where people are considered stupid and where the government is all powerful. No wonder your opinions are slanted this way. Was O.J. acquited in California…enough said!
How can you say \”I\’m also sure that the \”sister in law\” is a little more than that to Mr. Vail.\”? Exactly what are you trying to say here? Do you even know these people? NO
You are reading a article and making personal judgments against these individuals that you know nothing about.
Say what you want about the case, obviously the law has sided with them and that is all that matters. But when you start talking about people in the way that you have- you cross the line!
You posted that \”State Farm had some credible witnesses and sent info to State for prosecution\”. How do you know they were credible witnesses, just because they say they were? Looks to me like the court/jury did not find them very credible.
You posted \”No harm done.\” How can you say this? You have no idea what these people went through, nor their spouses and children. How would you feel if your name was smeared like theirs was? I am sure they had to pay attorney fees, take off from work to go to court, ect., and went through a lot of stress with this whole thing. They should be compansated for the hell they have went through for what, 8 years now?
You also said \”Insurance companies are part of this great economy we have in the U.S. They have helped millions of families and businesses rebuild after tragic events\”. I agree with you totally on this one. But sometimes they mess up, and sometimes they have to pay for thier mistakes and false accusations.
AGAIN JUST CAUSE A JURY SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT.
A PROSECUTOR DEEMED THEM CREDIBLE. PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD.
ALL INS. CO. DID WAS TURN OVER INFO THEY HAD TO THE PROSECUTORS ETC.
THIS HARKENS BACK TO OUR \’LOTTERY\’ SYTEM WE CALL JUSTICE. JURY MEMBERS THINK IT MAY BE THEIR TURN ONE DAY SO GO AHEAD AND AWARD LARGE DAMAGES. JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE CARLA AND THINK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES HERE. STATE FARM REPAIRING OR REPLACING CAR CORRECTS HARM PER JURY\’S DECISION. WHY WASNT STATE SUED…THEY PROSECUTED!!! WHAT ON EARTH CAUSED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF HARM. JUST CAUSE YOUR FEELINGS MIGHT BE HURT…SOMEONE WILL PAY! I SAY NO, GET OVER IT!!
Going to trial does not make for a horrible tragedy. How was their name smeared. Grow up Carla and use your brain not you feelings. Use your brain not your feelings. Repeated for emphasis. It was not a false accusation-the prosecutor accused them. State Farm only turned over info they gathered in their investigation. If prosecutors thought case was bad or witnesses not credible, they would have sent back to State Farm to repair or replace the vehicle…END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subject: RE: No harm done? — MUD
Posted On: December 9, 2005, 7:46 am CST
Posted By: MUD
Comment:
I notice you quote California cases, which when appealed to Federal Supreme Court are overturned. California is a state of communistic government where business is considered bad and where people are considered stupid and where the government is all powerful. No wonder your opinions are slanted this way. Was O. J. acquitted in California…enough said!
======================================
Mr. MUD,
I find it interesting that you compared the O. J. trial to this State Farm case.
Correct me if I\’m wrong but are you not forgetting a few things in the O. J. Simpson case?
Was it unreasonable for the jury in the O. J. Simpson trial to come to the conclusion they did \”when much of the evidence they were presented with\” came from lead Police detective Mark Fuhrman who later plead guilty to perjury on the stand of the O. J. trial and who also took the fifth amendment when asked \”if he had planted or manufacture evidence\”.
As a result, the prosecution was forced to label their main police witness as a \”bad cop\” in it\’s closing arguments.
\”With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, Fuhrman was asked questions as to whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufacture evidence in the Simpson case and Detective Fuhrman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination\”.
In Madam Foreman (Dove Books), by Simpson jurors Armanda Cooley Carrie Bess, and Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Cooley says that several jurors questioned:
Mr. MUD,
Why was EDTA, a blood preservative used in a sample vial that was later drawn from O. J., and this EDTA was found in the only one single blood drop of blood and this was the only evidence that physically linked O. J. to the crime scene.
This single blood drop was found at the gate of the Brent Wood murder site three weeks after the murder by Mark Fuhrman and after blood was drawn from O. J. Simpson but EDTA was not found in crime scene examiners Fung\’s other samples.
And although the prosecution spent considerable time showing how and why the samples of the Brentwood pathway blood had degraded because of the way Fung improperly stored them in a sweltering van, Juror Cooley still writes, \”It should have deteriorated along with the other samples.\”
In testimony in the O. J. trial the person who said she had drawn 8 cc\’s of blood from O. J. and the crime laboratory personal could not explain why they only could have accounted for 6.5 cc\’s.
Is it unreasonable for the O. J. Simpson jurors to have concluded that just maybe Fuhrman or his partner, had planted the blood at the crime scene three weeks after the crime?
Could not any reasonable jury also come to the conclusion that some of the key evidence was tainted?
Mr. MUD,
I\’m not claiming O.J. was innocent but how many Death Penalty convictions have been overturned since DNA evidence became available?
Getting back to State Farm Case, Mr. MUD
Does not State Farm have a history of using false witnesses as described by NBC News Dateline\’s 2000 investigative report: The Paper Chase
and also in the reading the 2003 Opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and the Supreme Court of UTAH in the case of STATE FARM vs. CAMPBELL does not State Farm also have a history and \”general practice of business\” of \”knowingly\” making false statements to support their position.
Ample evidence allowed the jury to find that State Farm\’s treatment of the Campbell\’s typified its \”Performance, Planning and Review\” (PP&R) program; implemented by top management in 1979, the program had \”the explicit objective of using the claims-adjustment process as a profit center.\”
Evidence the jury could credit demonstrated that the PP&R program regularly and adversely affected Utah residents. Ray Summers, \”the adjuster who handled the Campbell case and who was a State Farm employee in Utah for almost twenty years,\” described several methods used by State Farm to deny claimants fair benefits, for example, \”falsifying or withholding of evidence in claim files.\”
The trial court also noted the testimony of two Utah State Farm employees, Felix Jensen and Samantha Bird, both of whom recalled \”intolerable\” and \”recurrent\” pressure to reduce payouts below fair value.
When Jensen complained to top managers, he was told to \”get out of the kitchen\” if he could not take the heat; Bird was told she should be \”more of a team player.\”
At times, Bird said, she \”was forced to commit dishonest acts and to knowingly underpay claims.\”
Eventually, Bird quit. Utah managers superior to Bird, the evidence indicated, were improperly influenced by the PP&R program to encourage insurance underpayments. For example, several documents evaluating the performance of managers Noxon and Brown \”contained explicit preset average payout goals.\”
In this regard, the trial court noted the testimony of several former State Farm employees affirming that they were trained to target \”the weakest of the herd\”–\”the elderly, the poor, and other consumers who are least knowledgeable about their rights and thus most vulnerable to trickery or deceit, or who have little money and hence have no real alternative but to accept an inadequate offer to settle a claim at much less than fair value.\”
State Farm manager Bob Noxon, Summers testified, resorted to a tactic of this order in the Campbell case when he \”instruct[ed] Summers to write in the file that Todd Ospital (who was killed in the accident) was speeding because he was on his way to see a pregnant girlfriend.\” Ibid. In truth, \”[t]here was no pregnant girlfriend.\” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1289#dissent3
Mr. MUD,
If this is how State Farm treats their own first party policyholders, how will they treat third party claimants?
If history does not matter, Mr. MUD, why is State Farm so sensitive to this case?
Was State Farm\’s good name smeared by it\’s own employees, in the Campbell case? What would be their motive?
Is \”NO HARM WAS DONE\”, to falsely accused innocent insurance companies of fraud?
As you said MUD,
\”JUST CAUSE A JURY SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT.\”
Could the same be said about Insurance Companies and their lobbyists?
A bad as it is the jury system may be it is the only method found to seek legal redress under the law.
Mr. MUD,
Would you whish to seek to have Private Insurance Companies to be the only arbiters of the truth?
Please State Farm did not falsely accuse anyone, they turned over their evidence to the proper authorities. These authorities then accused after reviewing the evidence. I did not compare OJ to this trial. I only used as an example of the \’justice\’ system in California. Keep facts straight. If you want to discuss old trials please go to law school where they teach law based on trial outcomes rather than on law and you will be able to find many other liberals who hold your same views.
My intention is to keep to the facts of this case since they were the only point of this article and the facts presented to the judge and jury.
As liberals always do, your discussion on journalistic attempts by NBC(the most liberal \’news\’ station) hold no weight whatsoever. I would not trust NBC to tell me the correct time without some kind of leftist slant.
I find it odd that this car was not stripped, just burned in an open field. Toyotas\’ bring good money on the black market!!!
So the car wasn\’t found in the middle of the field burned? No witnesses adding differing facts? Because someones\’ care is stolen does not make them a fraud. But in this case I believe a fraud was committed. And I believe jury was in error. Too many questions remain!!!
You say you are fiscally conservative. Then why would you support fines for supposed \’harm\’ of having to defend yourself in court. Fines in the millions of dollars. These costs only add to the price of insurance for policyholders. They may be on tight budgets.
My argument, as stated earlier, is for judges to exercise their legal authority over juries. A juries decision is not final. A judge has authority to dismiss jury outcomes if it is not in accordance with the evidence provided in the particlur case. I am not a lawyer so forgive me for not knowing the legal term here.
In the article the defense attorney mentioned the fine was reasonable based on the size and income of State Farm. I thought the award to claimants was to be based on their actual harm. Which in this case is a burned car. Throw in some attourney fees and then move on. But who accused these people…not State Farm! So how on earth can they be liable for prosections inability to pursuade a jury! And that is what our courtrooms are about today, not evidence just feelings etc.
Fiscally conservative and conservative are two distinct points of view. Most people are fiscally conservative, they do not want money wasted. But politically conservative is another issue entirely. So when you quote liberal court cases and liberal news stations…I don\’t think you are politically conservative. That is not an attack just an estimation based on your writings.
But other than your leftists leanings, you are conservative with your money, just apply that same conservative value consistently…this includes corporate waste.
No Ins. co\’s should not be judge and jury, to specifically answer you. I never even remotely suggested this.
And before we all keep saying falsely accused. What does that mean? If I think your wife staged this event and had other witnesses to testify to this and your and her attorney was better at arguing than mine. That does not mean she was falsely accused it only means that a judge or jury found her not guilty. \’Not Guilty\’ does not mean innocent. Courts do not decide innocence, just guilt or not.
You seem to have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions.
Are you employed with State Farm or the insurance industry?
My wife never filed a claim on her car, it was found undamaged the next day.
By the way, we only carry liability on that car so there was no possible insurance claim anyway.
If I were to jump to conclusions about this State Farm case as you seemed to do with my wife, I would guess that not one, but two juries, a criminal jury and a civil trial jury did not believe State Farm\’s hired gun expert witnesses, who accused these two people of a crime.
Why?
Have you read the case transcripts, MUD?
By the way, isn\’t a Judge over-ruling a jury called \”JURY NULLIFICATION\”, something most \”conservatives\” say they are were against in the O. J. trials?
How do you know that the jury came up with the amount for punitive damages, and not the judge?
Do you know the individuals in this article? Or have you just read this article and made judegements from this and this alone?
Just like the other person who tried to make an implication that Mr. Vail and Ms. Hampton were more than brother and sister in law. You have no idea what really went on during the past 8 years, and your just protecting the insurance company. Are you an insurance agent? And by the way, I am a republican as well.
For someone to stay on this subject as long as you have, one can only think that you really feel strongly that people do not deserve to be compensated in cases such as this, or you have a beef with one of the two individuals mentioned, or you have something to do with an insurance company. I have a feeling its the first one, and I hope that is the case. We will just have to agree to disagree.
I dont think you have any facts on this case other than the fact that they say they had a credible witness, and they say she said the motor was bad, and they say a witness said he did it. They say…they say…they say. They also say an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
I have jumped to no conclusions accept that State Farm did not accuse anyone!
And going to trial to defend against a minor claim as in this case or a major claim in any case does not ever justify $8 million, period!!
I believe Carla you just responded to me and I just responded back.
I believe I have mentioned several times that because of the outcome couple should have been compensated with new or repaired vehicle and lawyer fees. Please read, remember, and think. I believe acting on your emotions is absolutely meaningless.
GROW UP. Actually sit down and read what my reply to you said. Take a breath, think, then reread, and then respond! You will sound much more intelligent that way.
AGAIN, STATE FARM DID NOT ACCUSE ANYONE WITH ANYTHING, THEY JUST BELIEVED THESE PEOPLE WERE COMMITTING FRAUD. THEY ACTED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OTHER INSURED\’S AND FOR THE COMPANY.
THE PROSECUTOR ACCUSED THEM OF INSURANCE FRAUD!!!!!!
NO I AM NOT EMPLOYED WITH STATE FARM. YOU SEE MY CONSERVATIVE VALUES ARE APPLIED CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY.
The Insurance Industry doesn\’t just want \”equality under the law\” they want \”favoring\” superiority over the law.
Please note below from: AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al. v. SULLIVAN
=====================================
\”The State\’s decision to allow insurers to withhold payments [and authorization] pending review can just as easily be seen as state inaction, or more accurately, a legislative decision not to intervene in a dispute between an insurer and an employee over whether a particular [medical] treatment is reasonable and necessary.\”.
\”Such permission of a private choice cannot support a finding of state action.\”
\’The State, in the course of administering a many-faceted remedial system, has shifted one facet from favoring the employees to favoring the employer [and the insurance companies].
This sort of decision occurs regularly in legislative review of such systems.\”
=====================================
[Is this truly \”equality\” under the eyes of the law when a system is endorsed that is \”favoring the employees to favoring the employer [and their insurance companies].
Shouldn\’t equality be the goal, with favoritism to none and justice to all, Mr. MUD?
=====================================
from:
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al. v. SULLIVAN et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 97-2000. Argued January 19, 1999–Decided March 3, 1999
\”A decision on the amount of punitive damages was left to Judge Atwell.\”
Posted on Tue, Dec. 06, 2005
Two sued State Farm, claiming malicious prosecution Court rules insurer must pay $8 million
By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City StarA Jackson County judge on Monday awarded more than $8 million in damages to two Kansas residents who contended they were maliciously prosecuted by State Farm Insurance.
Circuit Judge Charles E. Atwell said he would award $4,462,000 to Jennie Hampton of Olathe and $4,175,000 to her brother-in-law Marvin Vail of Edgerton. Each judgment included $4 million in punitive damages against the insurance company.
Attorney James P. Frickleton, who represented Hampton and Vail, said his clients were gratified by the decision.
“We felt that a significant punitive award was justified, particularly given State Farm’s size and conduct,” Frickleton said. “We’re very pleased with the court’s decision and feel it’s a continuing vindication of Ms. Hampton and Mr. Vail.”
An attorney representing the company and a spokesman for State Farm could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon. However, Frickleton said he was preparing for further litigation.
“I would be shocked if they didn’t appeal this as far as they can,” he said.
In September, a Jackson County jury assessed $400,000 each to Hampton and Vail after finding they were the victims of malicious prosecution by State Farm and a national organization that investigates insurance fraud. The National Insurance Crime Bureau settled with the two after trial, however. A decision on the amount of punitive damages was left to Atwell.
The case began in December 1997 when Hampton’s Toyota 4Runner was reported stolen and found burned in rural Miami County, Kan. State Farm declined to pay a $10,000 claim on the vehicle and, through the crime bureau, sent the case to Johnson County prosecutors, who charged Hampton and Vail with felony insurance fraud.
In her claim, Hampton stated that the Toyota’s engine had been in “excellent” condition, but witnesses told investigators that before the theft Hampton had mentioned engine problems and was looking for a new engine.
A witness also allegedly heard Vail say that he had towed the vehicle to where it was burned.
A Johnson County jury acquitted Hampton and Vail when the case went to trial in May 2001. The two then sued State Farm in Jackson County for malicious prosecution and breach of contract.
At the trial this fall in Kansas City, attorney Michael McCausland, who represented State Farm, told jurors that the Johnson County prosecutor, not the insurance company, made the decision to prosecute Hampton and Vail. McCausland also noted that evidence showed that the vehicle’s engine had been damaged before the fire, which supported statements from other witnesses.
In his ruling Monday, Atwell adjusted the jury’s $400,000 awards to account for the settlement with the crime bureau and a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages under Kansas law. He also ruled that should an appeals court find that a $5 million cap applies to the punitive damages of both Hampton and Vail, then the total punitive award would be $5 million.
———————————-
First glance
■ A Johnson County jury in 2001 acquitted Jennie Hampton and Marvin Vail of felony insurance fraud charges.
—————————–
To reach Mark Morris, call (816) 234-4310 or send e-mail to mmorris@kcstar.com .
Saying someone lied, which she did per witnesses, IS a statement of fact not an accusation. That charges (accusations) were of insurance fraud.
That goes along with SF\’s belief that fraud was being committed. Again The State Prosecutor brought offical ACCUSATIONS of couple.
Liberals quote liberals. That is why I dislike our evolving court system. People actually arguing over definition of IS.
I honestly do not know. But….my guess is that they are like many juries…lacking in common sense and wisdom…believing it is a lottery event with the hope that one day they might get there chance at this lottery event…they did not reason but used their feelings…they believe BIG business is evil and needs to be brought down…they might have been privy to previous actions of State Farm, which have no relevence to this case. Because if all past actions are relevent-Haven\’t all people lied at least once? If so then how could we EVER believe anyone!!!!!
If one looks at the evidence at face value, I believe that my guess is right on.
\”Frickleton [Attorney for Mr. Vail and Ms. Hampton] said State Farm and the insurance crime bureau relied on incomplete, hearsay evidence in seeking the fraud prosecution.\”
He also said award was right based on size of SF and earnings of same. Which goes against one of our strongest beliefs-THAT OF EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. If I am rich or poor the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy.
In a case like this, there is nothing but heresay unless a camera saw the act. Those charged with the crime say they did not do it. The witnesses reported what they heard. So of course there is only heresay!!!
That is so obvious, I didn\’t think to even discuss that. So the jury then based their opinion off of…..my guess(from previous response). Only evidence presented was dismissed by jury in favor of the lottery or to get back at big business.
That is why I hate and despise leftists values. They have been brainwashing the masses for decades.
Think for a minute about the billions and billions and billions of dollars wasted on insurance premiums year after year…and for what? To protect individuals and businesses from ludicrous awards such as this. Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money……………………………………………..
Posted On: December 15, 2005, 12:31 PM CST
Posted By: MUD
Comment:
He also said award was right based on size of SF and earnings of same. Which goes against one of our strongest beliefs-THAT OF EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. If I am \”rich or poor\” the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy. [By MUD]
====================
\”If I am rich or poor the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy.\” by MUD
I agree with you, MUD, but I whish our \”so-called liberal?\” U.S. Supreme Court shared our opinion that the 14th Amendment (the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution) should apply equally to \”rich or poor\” to the same laws equally to insurance companies in Worker\’s Compensation cases.
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ \” [on the part of an Insurer, Mr. MUD.]
\”Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ \”
In AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. v. SULLIVAN [97-2000]
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 97-2000. Argued January 19, 1999–Decided March 3, 1999
[Snips Please read the whole article]
Under Pennsylvania\’s Workers\’ Compensation Act, once an employer becomes liable for an employee\’s work-related injury–because liability either is not contested or is no longer at issue–the employer or its insurer must pay for all \”reasonable\” and \”necessary\” medical treatment.
[The Injured worker, Mr. MUD, in the middle of a traumatic injury has the burden of proof to prove:
(1) that an employer [insurer] is liable for a work-related injury, and
(2) that the particular medical treatment at issue is reasonable and necessary.
\”Before the enactment of workers\’ compensation laws, employees who suffered a work-related injury or occupational disease could recover compensation from their employers only by resort to traditional tort remedies available at common law. In the early 20th century, States began to replace the common-law system, which often saddled employees with the difficulty and expense of establishing negligence or proving damages, with a compulsory insurance system requiring employers to compensate employees for work-related injuries without regard to fault.\”
[The \”workers\’ compensation compact\” was supposed to protect, employees, employers and their insurers from tort remedies of common law in return to providing employee\’s for a \”no fault\” system providing \”prompt, reasonable and necessary\” medical care for their injuries in return for indemnifying employers and insurers from being sued in civil court.
This insurance system no longer works, for many people, Mr. MUD.]
From AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. v. SULLIVAN
To assure that insurers pay only for medical care that meets these criteria, and in an attempt to control costs, Pennsylvania amended its workers\’ compensation system in 1993. 1993 Pa. Laws, No. 44, p. 190. Most important for our purposes, the 1993 amendments created a \”utilization review\” procedure under which the reasonableness and necessity of an employee\’s past, ongoing, or prospective medical treatment could be reviewed before a medical bill must be paid [or authorized by the insurer].
If the URO finds in favor of the insurer, the employee may appeal the determination to a workers\’ compensation judge for a de novo review, but the insurer need not pay for the disputed services unless the URO\’s determination is overturned by the judge, or later by the courts.
\”In creating and executing this system of entitlements[???] , the [State] has enacted a complex and interwoven regulatory web enlisting the Bureau, the employers, and the insurance companies.
[Isn\’t the State government just too close to the insurance industry that it regulates, Mr. MUD?]
\”Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ [on the part of the employer or insurer?]\”
[Isn\’t this Absolutely Amazing, Mr. MUD?]
[In the mean time, Mr. MUD, you as an injured worker could even have an accepted, x-ray diagnosed, broken leg and are waiting and waiting for medical care that never seems to come for months. Unaware that a \”utilization review\” was being conducted or even informed why your medical was being withheld and even after the surgery was is approved you are then told you have lost the \”opportunity of early surgical repair\”.
You can have a broken leg, in a work related injury, Mr. MUD, and in the United States and never even received an aspirin for the injury, and it all appears to be legal.]
You may be right, Mr. MUD, it doesn\’t take too many examples like this to turn a hard core pro-business fiscally conservative Republican in what you may term, a raving LIBERAL.
Equality means equal access to courts, equal treatment of all, and equal fines. Equal fines means that the size of company being sued etc. should have no bearing whatsoever in the size of fine. Just like speeding tickets same fine for all.
As far as workers comp, I could care less. If I have an accident, accident not on purpose, my problem not my employers or the state or anyone else. Why is the answer always through the government and through the courts. Accountability means just that.
That is what liberalism and socialism and communism and everything leftist has in mind and goes back to my comments about California.
Everyone says they are fiscally conservative, but few practice and apply this conservatism consistently in their personal lives.
A conservative, not a Republican-I could care less which party a person votes for, believes in self reliance, accountability for their own actions, family values, most likely in God-but not all conservatives. These beliefs lead me to want less government involvement in my personal and business life. It leads me to have a high regard for the United States of America-and in her moral superiority.
Those that rely on governments and courts live their lives waiting for the next handout. Waiting for someone else to support them, waiting for someone else to fix all their problems.
Your so called injured worker can go to any doctor under his health insurance to receive and pay for necessary medical care.
Your argument that he will not even get an aspirin only regards to repayment under a workers comp claim.
So he can get better, AND if he can PROVE injury was employers fault he or his health insurance co. will be reimbursed, BUT only if the care received was necessary. So if he got a nose job at the same time as cast for broken leg-then nose job would not be reimbursed.
WHAT THE &?3@ IS WRONG WITH THAT???????
You are acting as though employee is entitled to all sorts of money cause he had an accident. He needs to prove someone else at fault..so what! He needs to prove any care was necessary…so what! That is the real world with health insurance for any individual-care will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
You need to move to Canada Dude, cause you think people are entitled to everything!!!!!!!!!
Calif. Governor Picks Insurance Industry Lobbyist for Deputy Chief of Staff
December 15, 2005
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has chosen an insurance industry lobbyist to be his deputy chief of staff and senior advisor for policy development, a new position.Starting at the new year, Dan Dunmoyer will leave his post as president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California.
In his new position, Dunmoyer, a Republican, will serve under Susan Kennedy, a Democrat who Schwarzenegger recently named his new chief of staff. Before joining the insurance federation in 1989, Dunmoyer worked for the Assembly Republican Caucus, where he developed legislative and public policy strategies.
Appellant Clayton Jackson, a [American Insurance Association (AIA)] lobbyist for the insurance industry, was charged with racketeering, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering, and mail fraud for his part in offering bribes to California state Senator Alan Robbins.
Jackson was convicted.
B. Racketeering Act 5 – Workers\’ Compensation
During the course of tape-recorded conversations, Jackson offered Robbins a $250,000 bribe. (Unknown to Jackson, Robbins had already been caught and had agreed to wear a wire in consideration for a reduced sentence.) Jackson promised this substantial reward if Robbins could bring under the jurisdiction of Robbins\’ friendly insurance committee an upcoming workers\’ compensation measure that would abolish the minimum rate law. Over a period of months, Jackson and Robbins discussed the outlines of the deal. Jackson promised to raise the money from the small insurance companies he represented, and who would be wiped out if the workers\’ compensation minimum rate law were abolished.
Jackson solicited donations from several insurance executives, telling them that the money would be used to establish a coalition of similar companies backed by a political action committee.
\”Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money………..\” by MUD
=============================
Sen. Lott Sues State Farm Insurance Co. in Katrina Damage
By HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 15,10:03 PM ET
JACKSON, Miss. – U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) is suing his insurance company over his beachfront Pascagoula home, which was leveled by Hurricane Katrina.
The law office of Lott\’s brother-in-law, high-profile plaintiff\’s Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs, filed the federal lawsuit Thursday on behalf of Lott and his wife against State Farm.
The case is part of an ongoing wind-versus-water-damage showdown between insurance companies and thousands of storm victims. The issue is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding. The companies contend they shouldn\’t have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies.
\”Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other south Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina,\” said Lott, R-Miss. \”There is no credible argument that there was no wind damage to my home in Pascagoula.\”
State Farm did not immediately respond to messages left by The Associated Press.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour has said he prefers to negotiate with insurance companies, saying lawsuits could force the companies out of Mississippi.
However, Attorney General Jim Hood, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippians with standard homeowner\’s policies, says the companies should cover hurricane damage no matter if the loss is from wind damage or a storm surge. Hood says damages could cost billions.
Scruggs, who also lost his Pascagoula home, led the charge in the landmark tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, and has promised to use his clout to get insurance companies to pay up.
Lott said he has exhausted all other options and had no choice but to turn to the courts.
\”My hope is that this litigation will set a precedent for the thousands of other Mississippi homeowners holding policies for coverage against hurricane wind damage that are not being honored by their insurance companies for Katrina,\” he said.
Isn\’t the insurance industry are acting as though they are entitled to all sorts of money from the government just because they had an terrorist attack.
The insurance companies need to prove it was \”one incident or two\”..so what! They need to prove reinsurance was necessary…so what!
That is the real world with insurance for any reinsurance will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
(Where is this required in the Constitution for the government to subsidize any industry?)
====================================
Mr. MUD,
How is the government providing reinsurance to a private industry NOT a form of corporate welfare?
Isn\’t the government providing private companies with reinsurance a for terrorism an example of \”centralized planing\” we might better expect from communist state?
Or Do we all need help from the government from time to time?
Merry Christmas,
Mr. MUD
\”Are there no prisons and work houses and poor houses\”
aka Ebenezer Scrooge ; >)
====================================
House gives final approval on terror insurance
Dec 18, 2005  By Kristin Roberts Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives has given final congressional approval to a bill to extend a set of federal guarantees to cover losses from terrorism, a program viewed by backers as vital to key U.S. industries.
By voice vote, the House on Saturday approved the measure one day after it won passage in the Senate. It now goes to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
After reaching a last-minute compromise that led to Senate passage Friday night, the House approved the legislation to narrow the scope of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and extend it by two years. It had been set to expire on December 31.
\”TRIA has provided a federal backstop protecting policyholders against future catastrophic terrorist attacks,\” said House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican.
The measure was first enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks to keep construction and the economy moving at a time when wary insurers were reluctant to offer coverage.
Under the program, insurers must make terrorism coverage available and in return, the U.S. government guarantees it will bear a large percentage of future losses above certain thresholds.
The property and insurance industries pushed for an extension of TRIA, arguing that nothing has changed since September 11  they still cannot judge the likelihood of attack and therefore cannot price policies.
But the White House and many Republicans had opposed extending TRIA without curbing taxpayers\’ potential liability.
The compromise bill narrows TRIA by removing some insurance lines from the program and raising the size of a terrorist event that triggers federal assistance from $5 million under the current program to $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. It also boosts insurer deductibles, among other things.
Industry officials said they were pleased Congress had come to an agreement. But some said the deal failed to address long-term issues.
I am not in favor of TRIA. I do not care if it is a business or individual that wants a hand-out. Either cover the events or exclude them, that is their(ins. co\’s.) choice. If no one will pay premium for this, we will survive just like before. Government will only exasberate the issue. Think of Social Security…intended to add to individuals retirement income as a safety net. Because it is now a \’RIGHT\’, very few save for retirement and spend all assets when they come in. Was retirement security repaired? No…people now live on the safety net and constantly want more.
GIVE A MAN A FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY, TEACH A MAN TO FISH AND FEED HIM FOR A LIFE-TIME.
Remember the story of the ant and grasshopper? One worked hard and saved food for the cold winter, while the other lived for the day. When winter came the grasshopper was begging for food from the ant. Seniors, the so called poor, businesses and others demanding the government solve and provide for all their wants and needs-we are being destroyed as a country and going broke because few will work hard to provide for their own families let alone those who truelly need assistance.
Missouri Jury Tells State Farm to Pay Up
By Dave Thomas
September 5, 2005
A Kansas City jury recently had some bad news for one of the nation\’s top insurers in deliberations that reportedly took less than six hours. The message to State Farm–pay up.
Five former State Farm Ins-urance agents were awarded $20 million by the jury that decided the agents were improperly terminated for being critical of the way the insurer reportedly treated its policyholders.
Tana Glockner, Joseph J. Kelly, Clifford F. Lykke, Michael Lee Morgan and Lee P. Saghirian, whose contracts were terminated in January 2000, were awarded $9 million in actual damages and $11 million in punitive damages. The five, who reportedly had more than 100 years of collective experience with State Farm, had spoken out in the fall of 1999 against the company, saying there was a need for change in State Farm\’s management structure.
In late 1999, the five agents gave permission to use their names in a letter to the Texas insurance commissioner that was critical of State Farm\’s treatment of policyholders.
Among the allegations were that the insurer charged extra for homeowners insurance, tried to defraud accident victims from full compensation and permitted sales discrimination to occur at the company. Glockner and Morgan had already given permission for their names to be signed to a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee and had participated in a Washington news conference.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs noted that at the heart of the Missouri case, was determining whether the insurer could fire an agent for going public to protect policyholder interests. He added that during the mid-1990s, there were a number of verdicts and settlements in which the insurer was discovered to have treated policyholders unfairly in a variety of different ways.
State Farm Director of External Relations, Phil Supple, told Insurance Journal that the company was obviously disappointed with the jury\’s decision. \”We believe our actions were appropriate, and we do not believe the verdict is supported by the evidence presented at trial,\” Supple said. \”We will reflect on the verdict and explore our options.\”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2005/09/05/features/60100.htm
ALL FAKE, ANYBODY READING THIS IN A SCHOOL CLASS IS READING A FAKE ARTICLE
xxx.com GO THERE FOR FREE MONEY
State Farm investigates the claim, then turns it over to the NICB, which further investigats the claim. It is then given to the state, where after review by a state\’s attorney, charges are filed.
I assume that State Farm will appeal.
I can testify that these 2 are \”pillars of the community\”. It was strictly coincidental that she was talking about mojor engine problems before the crime occurred. it was also coincidental that in the low crime community that this vehicle was stolen and then burned.
As a state farm policyholder I think it\’s only fair that I get to pay more so that these 2 pillars of the community get to live comfortably until the money runs out.
So, if State Farm and the NICB acted in good faith, why wasn\’t their reporting of the matter to the state, who was the party that actually filed the criminal charges, subject to some sort of qualified immunity?
Did the jury actually believe that State Farm, the NICB, and the state were all acting in bad faith?
I don\’t see how this can be true. The State filed charges, not State Farm. How can the Ins. Co. be held responsible for malicious prosecution when they have no standing to prosecute anyone?? I\’m also sure that the \”sister in law\” is a little more than that to Mr. Vail.
$8 million is pocket change to big Brother.
That\’s no excuse for what appears to be such a travesty. Besides, as a mutual company, that \”pocket change\” comes out of the pockets of the policyholders, and not the corporation.
Mutual or not, it all comes out of the rates of present and future policyholders.
Also, this is a Missouri case.. you know, the state where you cannot take more than 4% off damages for not wearing a seat belt; the hick state!
Court rooms are not a lottery system to riches, although after many injustices such as this-I am beginning to wonder.
Staged or not-what harm is done? The only legally binding remedy is to enforce the replacement of the vehicle per policy provisions…THAT IS ALL!! If the STATE believes it has a case it has every right to pursue. The \’couple\’ involved won their case and story complete.
Since when should an award be based on size of company being sued??? How about the actual amount of harm??? How about State Farm being removed from these legal proceedings completely???
Hold on a second…it may be my turn soon at the LOTTERY…don\’t change anything yet!!! Just kidding on the last sentence.
Well, it seems that the good neighbor was not a good neighbor after all.
This is just another example of State Farm finding a reason not to pay a claim and it backfired on them when the insured took them to Court! They did NOT have enough physical evidence to warrant charging the insureds with FRAUD – they should have just paid the claim and saved themselves 8 Million Dollars!
State Farm as a 5 time loser may need to take concern that their actions by their claims management may in the future be considered to be a \”General Practice of Business\”.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1289.html
Claims Management should not be a profit center.
Is former Enron Director, Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, the wife of former Sen. Phil Gramm still on State Farm\’s Board of Directors?
http://info.insure.com/pro/pc/statefarmsuit601.cfm
.
Dear Mr. MUD,
Did not State Farm have both civil and a criminal trials on this issue and State Farm lost both times after having had a chance to present their case.
Two separate juries didn\’t believe State Farm.
Did \”State Farm followed proper procedure\”?
And yes I do believe companies have corporate cultures and past events should matter in these cases.
Mr. MUD You state:
\”It is not the responsibility of Insurance companies to pay EVERY claim,\” NO ONLY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS!
AND
\”there is much fraud and they have the legal right [and duty] to verify claims\”
The amount of fraud \’estimated\’ by the insurance industry has been grossly exaggerated and while insurers have a legal right to verify claims and a \’duty to defend\’ policy holders.
But \’knowingly\’ providing false information should result in criminal charges to the insurers\’ employees at all levels of a company involved.
Unfortunately our nation\’s State insurance commissioners\’, the NAIC, and our courts seem unprepared or unwilling to truthfully uphold the laws of our nation as they are written.
Reporting insurance fraud – even if done in bad faith – SHOULD NOT BE protected.
——————————
FEAR NOT WHEN REPORTING INSURANCE FRAUD
Reporting insurance fraud – even if done in bad faith – is protected, according to Fremont Compensation Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Gopinath) 44 Cal.App.4th 867 (1996). The protection of California Civil Code §47, which provides absolute immunity for a report to the police, has been found to extend to insurance companies.
Insurance Code §1877.5 affords insurers only qualified immunity in reporting insurance fraud to the District Attorney or Department of Insurance, and only applies to reports made in good faith. This section limits immunity to reports made without malice and exempts insurers from \”any civil liability in a cause of action of any kind where the insurer … acts in good faith, without malice, and reasonably believes that the action taken was warranted by the then-known facts\”.
However, insurers are no longer limited to qualified immunity, and no longer to reports made only in good faith. Absolute immunity fosters \”utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing\”, which when balanced, outweighs the \”occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual\”. (See Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 48.) However, any defamed individual retains the remedy of malicious prosecution against the prosecuting government agency.
Freedom of communication between victims of crime and law enforcement agencies is particularly important in the insurance industry because costs of crime are borne by all consumers, employees, and businesses in the form of higher rates. \”Insurers and their policyholders ultimately pay the cost of fraudulent insurance claims\”, as noted in Insurance Code §1875.10(b).
This case, then, extends absolute immunity to claims made even in bad faith. It concluded that Civil Code §47 gives everybody, including insurers, the right to report crimes to the police, the local prosecutor, or the appropriate regulatory agency, even if the report is made in bad faith.
—————————
Mr. MUD,
We all deserve \’equal protection under the law\’, even insurance companies.
Mr. MUD,
If you would like to have a civil discussion of whether \”No harm is done\” to falsely accused innocent individuals I am more than prepared to discuss this issue with you.
AND Mr. MUD,
Please Remember the only thing this industry has to sell is trust!
.
Missouri Jury Tells State Farm to Pay Up
By Dave Thomas
September 5, 2005
A Kansas City jury recently had some bad news for one of the nation\’s top insurers in deliberations that reportedly took less than six hours. The message to State Farm–pay up.
Five former State Farm Ins-urance agents were awarded $20 million by the jury that decided the agents were improperly terminated for being critical of the way the insurer reportedly treated its policyholders.
Tana Glockner, Joseph J. Kelly, Clifford F. Lykke, Michael Lee Morgan and Lee P. Saghirian, whose contracts were terminated in January 2000, were awarded $9 million in actual damages and $11 million in punitive damages. The five, who reportedly had more than 100 years of collective experience with State Farm, had spoken out in the fall of 1999 against the company, saying there was a need for change in State Farm\’s management structure.
In late 1999, the five agents gave permission to use their names in a letter to the Texas insurance commissioner that was critical of State Farm\’s treatment of policyholders.
Among the allegations were that the insurer charged extra for homeowners insurance, tried to defraud accident victims from full compensation and permitted sales discrimination to occur at the company. Glockner and Morgan had already given permission for their names to be signed to a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee and had participated in a Washington news conference.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs noted that at the heart of the Missouri case, was determining whether the insurer could fire an agent for going public to protect policyholder interests. He added that during the mid-1990s, there were a number of verdicts and settlements in which the insurer was discovered to have treated policyholders unfairly in a variety of different ways.
State Farm Director of External Relations, Phil Supple, told Insurance Journal that the company was obviously disappointed with the jury\’s decision. \”We believe our actions were appropriate, and we do not believe the verdict is supported by the evidence presented at trial,\” Supple said. \”We will reflect on the verdict and explore our options.\”
May be we need a change of \”senior\” management at some of the insurance companies.
Insurance Industry is One Big Piece of Fraud
Past problems have nothing to do with this case…AT ALL. State Farm had some credible witnesses and sent info to State for prosecution, State prosecuted and lost. No harm done. State Farm followed proper procedure. It is not the responsibility of Insurance companies to pay EVERY claim, there is much fraud and they have the legal right to verify claims. All Insurance companies are required to pay only LEGITIMATE claims. So because State Farm followed proper procedures they have to pay $8 million. The fraud exist in court rooms with lawyers and juries and judges. Any judge can execute a different verdict than what a jury decides due to evidence suggesting something different than what the jury decided. In this case this is precisely what should have been done!
Insurance companies are part of this great economy we have in the U.S. They have helped millions of families and businesses rebuild after tragic events, and will contiinue to do so unless the justice system in this country has its way!!!!!!
Because a jury says someone is guilty or non-guilty…does not make it so. Witnesses testified to the statements claimants made, a prosecuter filed charges based on an examination of evidence against this couple. Prosecuters do not like to lose, so if they thought case was not strong enough they would have walked.
ABSOLUTELY NO HARM!!!!!
I notice you quote California cases, which when appealed to Federal Supreme Court are overturned. California is a state of communistic government where business is considered bad and where people are considered stupid and where the government is all powerful. No wonder your opinions are slanted this way. Was O.J. acquited in California…enough said!
You have an obvious dislike of SF. You have no right to imply that all insurance carriers are dishonorable.
Reagan,
How can you say \”I\’m also sure that the \”sister in law\” is a little more than that to Mr. Vail.\”? Exactly what are you trying to say here? Do you even know these people? NO
You are reading a article and making personal judgments against these individuals that you know nothing about.
Say what you want about the case, obviously the law has sided with them and that is all that matters. But when you start talking about people in the way that you have- you cross the line!
Mud-
You posted that \”State Farm had some credible witnesses and sent info to State for prosecution\”. How do you know they were credible witnesses, just because they say they were? Looks to me like the court/jury did not find them very credible.
You posted \”No harm done.\” How can you say this? You have no idea what these people went through, nor their spouses and children. How would you feel if your name was smeared like theirs was? I am sure they had to pay attorney fees, take off from work to go to court, ect., and went through a lot of stress with this whole thing. They should be compansated for the hell they have went through for what, 8 years now?
You also said \”Insurance companies are part of this great economy we have in the U.S. They have helped millions of families and businesses rebuild after tragic events\”. I agree with you totally on this one. But sometimes they mess up, and sometimes they have to pay for thier mistakes and false accusations.
AGAIN JUST CAUSE A JURY SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT.
A PROSECUTOR DEEMED THEM CREDIBLE. PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD.
ALL INS. CO. DID WAS TURN OVER INFO THEY HAD TO THE PROSECUTORS ETC.
THIS HARKENS BACK TO OUR \’LOTTERY\’ SYTEM WE CALL JUSTICE. JURY MEMBERS THINK IT MAY BE THEIR TURN ONE DAY SO GO AHEAD AND AWARD LARGE DAMAGES. JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE CARLA AND THINK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES HERE. STATE FARM REPAIRING OR REPLACING CAR CORRECTS HARM PER JURY\’S DECISION. WHY WASNT STATE SUED…THEY PROSECUTED!!! WHAT ON EARTH CAUSED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF HARM. JUST CAUSE YOUR FEELINGS MIGHT BE HURT…SOMEONE WILL PAY! I SAY NO, GET OVER IT!!
Going to trial does not make for a horrible tragedy. How was their name smeared. Grow up Carla and use your brain not you feelings. Use your brain not your feelings. Repeated for emphasis. It was not a false accusation-the prosecutor accused them. State Farm only turned over info they gathered in their investigation. If prosecutors thought case was bad or witnesses not credible, they would have sent back to State Farm to repair or replace the vehicle…END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stress is always self-inflicted, how a person responds to outside stimuli!!!
Their lawyers would be covered under an umbrella policy if they intelligent enough to have purchased one.
Subject: RE: No harm done? — MUD
Posted On: December 9, 2005, 7:46 am CST
Posted By: MUD
Comment:
I notice you quote California cases, which when appealed to Federal Supreme Court are overturned. California is a state of communistic government where business is considered bad and where people are considered stupid and where the government is all powerful. No wonder your opinions are slanted this way. Was O. J. acquitted in California…enough said!
======================================
Mr. MUD,
I find it interesting that you compared the O. J. trial to this State Farm case.
Correct me if I\’m wrong but are you not forgetting a few things in the O. J. Simpson case?
Was it unreasonable for the jury in the O. J. Simpson trial to come to the conclusion they did \”when much of the evidence they were presented with\” came from lead Police detective Mark Fuhrman who later plead guilty to perjury on the stand of the O. J. trial and who also took the fifth amendment when asked \”if he had planted or manufacture evidence\”.
As a result, the prosecution was forced to label their main police witness as a \”bad cop\” in it\’s closing arguments.
\”With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, Fuhrman was asked questions as to whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufacture evidence in the Simpson case and Detective Fuhrman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination\”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman
In Madam Foreman (Dove Books), by Simpson jurors Armanda Cooley Carrie Bess, and Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Cooley says that several jurors questioned:
Mr. MUD,
Why was EDTA, a blood preservative used in a sample vial that was later drawn from O. J., and this EDTA was found in the only one single blood drop of blood and this was the only evidence that physically linked O. J. to the crime scene.
This single blood drop was found at the gate of the Brent Wood murder site three weeks after the murder by Mark Fuhrman and after blood was drawn from O. J. Simpson but EDTA was not found in crime scene examiners Fung\’s other samples.
And although the prosecution spent considerable time showing how and why the samples of the Brentwood pathway blood had degraded because of the way Fung improperly stored them in a sweltering van, Juror Cooley still writes, \”It should have deteriorated along with the other samples.\”
In testimony in the O. J. trial the person who said she had drawn 8 cc\’s of blood from O. J. and the crime laboratory personal could not explain why they only could have accounted for 6.5 cc\’s.
Is it unreasonable for the O. J. Simpson jurors to have concluded that just maybe Fuhrman or his partner, had planted the blood at the crime scene three weeks after the crime?
Could not any reasonable jury also come to the conclusion that some of the key evidence was tainted?
Mr. MUD,
I\’m not claiming O.J. was innocent but how many Death Penalty convictions have been overturned since DNA evidence became available?
Getting back to State Farm Case, Mr. MUD
Does not State Farm have a history of using false witnesses as described by NBC News Dateline\’s 2000 investigative report: The Paper Chase
http://www.attorneykennugent.com/new/statefarm.html
Has State Farm turned over a new leaf?
and also in the reading the 2003 Opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and the Supreme Court of UTAH in the case of STATE FARM vs. CAMPBELL does not State Farm also have a history and \”general practice of business\” of \”knowingly\” making false statements to support their position.
Ample evidence allowed the jury to find that State Farm\’s treatment of the Campbell\’s typified its \”Performance, Planning and Review\” (PP&R) program; implemented by top management in 1979, the program had \”the explicit objective of using the claims-adjustment process as a profit center.\”
Evidence the jury could credit demonstrated that the PP&R program regularly and adversely affected Utah residents. Ray Summers, \”the adjuster who handled the Campbell case and who was a State Farm employee in Utah for almost twenty years,\” described several methods used by State Farm to deny claimants fair benefits, for example, \”falsifying or withholding of evidence in claim files.\”
The trial court also noted the testimony of two Utah State Farm employees, Felix Jensen and Samantha Bird, both of whom recalled \”intolerable\” and \”recurrent\” pressure to reduce payouts below fair value.
When Jensen complained to top managers, he was told to \”get out of the kitchen\” if he could not take the heat; Bird was told she should be \”more of a team player.\”
At times, Bird said, she \”was forced to commit dishonest acts and to knowingly underpay claims.\”
Eventually, Bird quit. Utah managers superior to Bird, the evidence indicated, were improperly influenced by the PP&R program to encourage insurance underpayments. For example, several documents evaluating the performance of managers Noxon and Brown \”contained explicit preset average payout goals.\”
In this regard, the trial court noted the testimony of several former State Farm employees affirming that they were trained to target \”the weakest of the herd\”–\”the elderly, the poor, and other consumers who are least knowledgeable about their rights and thus most vulnerable to trickery or deceit, or who have little money and hence have no real alternative but to accept an inadequate offer to settle a claim at much less than fair value.\”
State Farm manager Bob Noxon, Summers testified, resorted to a tactic of this order in the Campbell case when he \”instruct[ed] Summers to write in the file that Todd Ospital (who was killed in the accident) was speeding because he was on his way to see a pregnant girlfriend.\” Ibid. In truth, \”[t]here was no pregnant girlfriend.\”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1289#dissent3
Mr. MUD,
If this is how State Farm treats their own first party policyholders, how will they treat third party claimants?
If history does not matter, Mr. MUD, why is State Farm so sensitive to this case?
Was State Farm\’s good name smeared by it\’s own employees, in the Campbell case? What would be their motive?
Is \”NO HARM WAS DONE\”, to falsely accused innocent insurance companies of fraud?
As you said MUD,
\”JUST CAUSE A JURY SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT.\”
Could the same be said about Insurance Companies and their lobbyists?
A bad as it is the jury system may be it is the only method found to seek legal redress under the law.
Mr. MUD,
Would you whish to seek to have Private Insurance Companies to be the only arbiters of the truth?
Please State Farm did not falsely accuse anyone, they turned over their evidence to the proper authorities. These authorities then accused after reviewing the evidence. I did not compare OJ to this trial. I only used as an example of the \’justice\’ system in California. Keep facts straight. If you want to discuss old trials please go to law school where they teach law based on trial outcomes rather than on law and you will be able to find many other liberals who hold your same views.
My intention is to keep to the facts of this case since they were the only point of this article and the facts presented to the judge and jury.
As liberals always do, your discussion on journalistic attempts by NBC(the most liberal \’news\’ station) hold no weight whatsoever. I would not trust NBC to tell me the correct time without some kind of leftist slant.
I find it odd that this car was not stripped, just burned in an open field. Toyotas\’ bring good money on the black market!!!
Gee MUD,
\”I find it odd that this car was not stripped, just burned in an open field. Toyotas\’ bring good money on the black market!!!\”
by MUD,
=======================
Gee MUD,
My wife\’s car was stolen recently stolen and nothing was taken and no damage was done.
The police said some youths had skeleton keys and were taking cars for joy rides.
Was she also a fraud?
MUD,
You never answered my question:
While the jury system is as imperfect as anything else developed by man.
Should private Insurance companies be the sole arbiters of the truth?
Say MUD, Wasn\’t there a Dr. MUD who was falsely accused in the assassination President Lincoln?
PS: I have been a life-long fiscally conservative Republican.
.
So the car wasn\’t found in the middle of the field burned? No witnesses adding differing facts? Because someones\’ care is stolen does not make them a fraud. But in this case I believe a fraud was committed. And I believe jury was in error. Too many questions remain!!!
You say you are fiscally conservative. Then why would you support fines for supposed \’harm\’ of having to defend yourself in court. Fines in the millions of dollars. These costs only add to the price of insurance for policyholders. They may be on tight budgets.
My argument, as stated earlier, is for judges to exercise their legal authority over juries. A juries decision is not final. A judge has authority to dismiss jury outcomes if it is not in accordance with the evidence provided in the particlur case. I am not a lawyer so forgive me for not knowing the legal term here.
In the article the defense attorney mentioned the fine was reasonable based on the size and income of State Farm. I thought the award to claimants was to be based on their actual harm. Which in this case is a burned car. Throw in some attourney fees and then move on. But who accused these people…not State Farm! So how on earth can they be liable for prosections inability to pursuade a jury! And that is what our courtrooms are about today, not evidence just feelings etc.
Fiscally conservative and conservative are two distinct points of view. Most people are fiscally conservative, they do not want money wasted. But politically conservative is another issue entirely. So when you quote liberal court cases and liberal news stations…I don\’t think you are politically conservative. That is not an attack just an estimation based on your writings.
But other than your leftists leanings, you are conservative with your money, just apply that same conservative value consistently…this includes corporate waste.
No Ins. co\’s should not be judge and jury, to specifically answer you. I never even remotely suggested this.
And before we all keep saying falsely accused. What does that mean? If I think your wife staged this event and had other witnesses to testify to this and your and her attorney was better at arguing than mine. That does not mean she was falsely accused it only means that a judge or jury found her not guilty. \’Not Guilty\’ does not mean innocent. Courts do not decide innocence, just guilt or not.
Gee MUD,
You seem to have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions.
Are you employed with State Farm or the insurance industry?
My wife never filed a claim on her car, it was found undamaged the next day.
By the way, we only carry liability on that car so there was no possible insurance claim anyway.
If I were to jump to conclusions about this State Farm case as you seemed to do with my wife, I would guess that not one, but two juries, a criminal jury and a civil trial jury did not believe State Farm\’s hired gun expert witnesses, who accused these two people of a crime.
Why?
Have you read the case transcripts, MUD?
By the way, isn\’t a Judge over-ruling a jury called \”JURY NULLIFICATION\”, something most \”conservatives\” say they are were against in the O. J. trials?
How do you know that the jury came up with the amount for punitive damages, and not the judge?
Do you know the individuals in this article? Or have you just read this article and made judegements from this and this alone?
Just like the other person who tried to make an implication that Mr. Vail and Ms. Hampton were more than brother and sister in law. You have no idea what really went on during the past 8 years, and your just protecting the insurance company. Are you an insurance agent? And by the way, I am a republican as well.
For someone to stay on this subject as long as you have, one can only think that you really feel strongly that people do not deserve to be compensated in cases such as this, or you have a beef with one of the two individuals mentioned, or you have something to do with an insurance company. I have a feeling its the first one, and I hope that is the case. We will just have to agree to disagree.
I dont think you have any facts on this case other than the fact that they say they had a credible witness, and they say she said the motor was bad, and they say a witness said he did it. They say…they say…they say. They also say an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
I have jumped to no conclusions accept that State Farm did not accuse anyone!
And going to trial to defend against a minor claim as in this case or a major claim in any case does not ever justify $8 million, period!!
I believe Carla you just responded to me and I just responded back.
I believe I have mentioned several times that because of the outcome couple should have been compensated with new or repaired vehicle and lawyer fees. Please read, remember, and think. I believe acting on your emotions is absolutely meaningless.
GROW UP. Actually sit down and read what my reply to you said. Take a breath, think, then reread, and then respond! You will sound much more intelligent that way.
AGAIN, STATE FARM DID NOT ACCUSE ANYONE WITH ANYTHING, THEY JUST BELIEVED THESE PEOPLE WERE COMMITTING FRAUD. THEY ACTED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OTHER INSURED\’S AND FOR THE COMPANY.
THE PROSECUTOR ACCUSED THEM OF INSURANCE FRAUD!!!!!!
NO I AM NOT EMPLOYED WITH STATE FARM. YOU SEE MY CONSERVATIVE VALUES ARE APPLIED CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY.
You see Mr. MUD
The Insurance Industry doesn\’t just want \”equality under the law\” they want \”favoring\” superiority over the law.
Please note below from: AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al. v. SULLIVAN
=====================================
\”The State\’s decision to allow insurers to withhold payments [and authorization] pending review can just as easily be seen as state inaction, or more accurately, a legislative decision not to intervene in a dispute between an insurer and an employee over whether a particular [medical] treatment is reasonable and necessary.\”.
\”Such permission of a private choice cannot support a finding of state action.\”
\’The State, in the course of administering a many-faceted remedial system, has shifted one facet from favoring the employees to favoring the employer [and the insurance companies].
This sort of decision occurs regularly in legislative review of such systems.\”
=====================================
[Is this truly \”equality\” under the eyes of the law when a system is endorsed that is \”favoring the employees to favoring the employer [and their insurance companies].
Shouldn\’t equality be the goal, with favoritism to none and justice to all, Mr. MUD?
=====================================
from:
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al. v. SULLIVAN et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 97-2000. Argued January 19, 1999–Decided March 3, 1999
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/97-2000.html
\”AGAIN, STATE FARM DID NOT \”ACCUSE\” ANYONE WITH ANYTHING, THEY JUST BELIEVED THESE PEOPLE WERE COMMITTING FRAUD.\”
by MUD
===========================
From the original article, MUD.
\”The company [State Farm] accused her of \”lying\” in claiming that the Toyota\’s engine was in \”excellent\” condition.\”
===========================
Please define what \”IS\” is, MR. Clinton.
.
\”A decision on the amount of punitive damages was left to Judge Atwell.\”
Posted on Tue, Dec. 06, 2005
Two sued State Farm, claiming malicious prosecution Court rules insurer must pay $8 million
By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City StarA Jackson County judge on Monday awarded more than $8 million in damages to two Kansas residents who contended they were maliciously prosecuted by State Farm Insurance.
Circuit Judge Charles E. Atwell said he would award $4,462,000 to Jennie Hampton of Olathe and $4,175,000 to her brother-in-law Marvin Vail of Edgerton. Each judgment included $4 million in punitive damages against the insurance company.
Attorney James P. Frickleton, who represented Hampton and Vail, said his clients were gratified by the decision.
“We felt that a significant punitive award was justified, particularly given State Farm’s size and conduct,” Frickleton said. “We’re very pleased with the court’s decision and feel it’s a continuing vindication of Ms. Hampton and Mr. Vail.”
An attorney representing the company and a spokesman for State Farm could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon. However, Frickleton said he was preparing for further litigation.
“I would be shocked if they didn’t appeal this as far as they can,” he said.
In September, a Jackson County jury assessed $400,000 each to Hampton and Vail after finding they were the victims of malicious prosecution by State Farm and a national organization that investigates insurance fraud. The National Insurance Crime Bureau settled with the two after trial, however. A decision on the amount of punitive damages was left to Atwell.
The case began in December 1997 when Hampton’s Toyota 4Runner was reported stolen and found burned in rural Miami County, Kan. State Farm declined to pay a $10,000 claim on the vehicle and, through the crime bureau, sent the case to Johnson County prosecutors, who charged Hampton and Vail with felony insurance fraud.
In her claim, Hampton stated that the Toyota’s engine had been in “excellent” condition, but witnesses told investigators that before the theft Hampton had mentioned engine problems and was looking for a new engine.
A witness also allegedly heard Vail say that he had towed the vehicle to where it was burned.
A Johnson County jury acquitted Hampton and Vail when the case went to trial in May 2001. The two then sued State Farm in Jackson County for malicious prosecution and breach of contract.
At the trial this fall in Kansas City, attorney Michael McCausland, who represented State Farm, told jurors that the Johnson County prosecutor, not the insurance company, made the decision to prosecute Hampton and Vail. McCausland also noted that evidence showed that the vehicle’s engine had been damaged before the fire, which supported statements from other witnesses.
In his ruling Monday, Atwell adjusted the jury’s $400,000 awards to account for the settlement with the crime bureau and a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages under Kansas law. He also ruled that should an appeals court find that a $5 million cap applies to the punitive damages of both Hampton and Vail, then the total punitive award would be $5 million.
———————————-
First glance
■ A Johnson County jury in 2001 acquitted Jennie Hampton and Marvin Vail of felony insurance fraud charges.
—————————–
To reach Mark Morris, call (816) 234-4310 or send e-mail to mmorris@kcstar.com .
Saying someone lied, which she did per witnesses, IS a statement of fact not an accusation. That charges (accusations) were of insurance fraud.
That goes along with SF\’s belief that fraud was being committed. Again The State Prosecutor brought offical ACCUSATIONS of couple.
Liberals quote liberals. That is why I dislike our evolving court system. People actually arguing over definition of IS.
Why did not one, but two full juries and at least the Judge in the Civil trial not believe, State Farm\’s view of the events?
Why did the Judge believe this was a \”malicious prosecution\” by State Farm and the insurance industry funded National Insurance Crime Bureau?
Have you read the two trial transcripts?
.
I honestly do not know. But….my guess is that they are like many juries…lacking in common sense and wisdom…believing it is a lottery event with the hope that one day they might get there chance at this lottery event…they did not reason but used their feelings…they believe BIG business is evil and needs to be brought down…they might have been privy to previous actions of State Farm, which have no relevence to this case. Because if all past actions are relevent-Haven\’t all people lied at least once? If so then how could we EVER believe anyone!!!!!
If one looks at the evidence at face value, I believe that my guess is right on.
\”Frickleton [Attorney for Mr. Vail and Ms. Hampton] said State Farm and the insurance crime bureau relied on incomplete, hearsay evidence in seeking the fraud prosecution.\”
http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=4208237
Mr. MUD,
Did State Farm and the NICB give these people the \”benifit of the doubt\” before \”seeking the fraud prosecution.\”
.
He also said award was right based on size of SF and earnings of same. Which goes against one of our strongest beliefs-THAT OF EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. If I am rich or poor the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy.
In a case like this, there is nothing but heresay unless a camera saw the act. Those charged with the crime say they did not do it. The witnesses reported what they heard. So of course there is only heresay!!!
That is so obvious, I didn\’t think to even discuss that. So the jury then based their opinion off of…..my guess(from previous response). Only evidence presented was dismissed by jury in favor of the lottery or to get back at big business.
That is why I hate and despise leftists values. They have been brainwashing the masses for decades.
Think for a minute about the billions and billions and billions of dollars wasted on insurance premiums year after year…and for what? To protect individuals and businesses from ludicrous awards such as this. Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money……………………………………………..
Posted On: December 15, 2005, 12:31 PM CST
Posted By: MUD
Comment:
He also said award was right based on size of SF and earnings of same. Which goes against one of our strongest beliefs-THAT OF EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. If I am \”rich or poor\” the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy. [By MUD]
====================
\”If I am rich or poor the same laws should be applied equally, otherwise we are headed to anarchy.\” by MUD
I agree with you, MUD, but I whish our \”so-called liberal?\” U.S. Supreme Court shared our opinion that the 14th Amendment (the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution) should apply equally to \”rich or poor\” to the same laws equally to insurance companies in Worker\’s Compensation cases.
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ \” [on the part of an Insurer, Mr. MUD.]
\”Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ \”
In AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. v. SULLIVAN [97-2000]
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/97-2000.html
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
No. 97-2000. Argued January 19, 1999–Decided March 3, 1999
[Snips Please read the whole article]
Under Pennsylvania\’s Workers\’ Compensation Act, once an employer becomes liable for an employee\’s work-related injury–because liability either is not contested or is no longer at issue–the employer or its insurer must pay for all \”reasonable\” and \”necessary\” medical treatment.
[The Injured worker, Mr. MUD, in the middle of a traumatic injury has the burden of proof to prove:
(1) that an employer [insurer] is liable for a work-related injury, and
(2) that the particular medical treatment at issue is reasonable and necessary.
\”Before the enactment of workers\’ compensation laws, employees who suffered a work-related injury or occupational disease could recover compensation from their employers only by resort to traditional tort remedies available at common law. In the early 20th century, States began to replace the common-law system, which often saddled employees with the difficulty and expense of establishing negligence or proving damages, with a compulsory insurance system requiring employers to compensate employees for work-related injuries without regard to fault.\”
[The \”workers\’ compensation compact\” was supposed to protect, employees, employers and their insurers from tort remedies of common law in return to providing employee\’s for a \”no fault\” system providing \”prompt, reasonable and necessary\” medical care for their injuries in return for indemnifying employers and insurers from being sued in civil court.
This insurance system no longer works, for many people, Mr. MUD.]
From AMERICAN MFRS. MUT. INS. CO. v. SULLIVAN
To assure that insurers pay only for medical care that meets these criteria, and in an attempt to control costs, Pennsylvania amended its workers\’ compensation system in 1993. 1993 Pa. Laws, No. 44, p. 190. Most important for our purposes, the 1993 amendments created a \”utilization review\” procedure under which the reasonableness and necessity of an employee\’s past, ongoing, or prospective medical treatment could be reviewed before a medical bill must be paid [or authorized by the insurer].
If the URO finds in favor of the insurer, the employee may appeal the determination to a workers\’ compensation judge for a de novo review, but the insurer need not pay for the disputed services unless the URO\’s determination is overturned by the judge, or later by the courts.
\”In creating and executing this system of entitlements[???] , the [State] has enacted a complex and interwoven regulatory web enlisting the Bureau, the employers, and the insurance companies.
[Isn\’t the State government just too close to the insurance industry that it regulates, Mr. MUD?]
\”Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of excludes from its reach \” ‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,\’ [on the part of the employer or insurer?]\”
[Isn\’t this Absolutely Amazing, Mr. MUD?]
[In the mean time, Mr. MUD, you as an injured worker could even have an accepted, x-ray diagnosed, broken leg and are waiting and waiting for medical care that never seems to come for months. Unaware that a \”utilization review\” was being conducted or even informed why your medical was being withheld and even after the surgery was is approved you are then told you have lost the \”opportunity of early surgical repair\”.
You can have a broken leg, in a work related injury, Mr. MUD, and in the United States and never even received an aspirin for the injury, and it all appears to be legal.]
You may be right, Mr. MUD, it doesn\’t take too many examples like this to turn a hard core pro-business fiscally conservative Republican in what you may term, a raving LIBERAL.
Equality means equal access to courts, equal treatment of all, and equal fines. Equal fines means that the size of company being sued etc. should have no bearing whatsoever in the size of fine. Just like speeding tickets same fine for all.
As far as workers comp, I could care less. If I have an accident, accident not on purpose, my problem not my employers or the state or anyone else. Why is the answer always through the government and through the courts. Accountability means just that.
That is what liberalism and socialism and communism and everything leftist has in mind and goes back to my comments about California.
Everyone says they are fiscally conservative, but few practice and apply this conservatism consistently in their personal lives.
A conservative, not a Republican-I could care less which party a person votes for, believes in self reliance, accountability for their own actions, family values, most likely in God-but not all conservatives. These beliefs lead me to want less government involvement in my personal and business life. It leads me to have a high regard for the United States of America-and in her moral superiority.
Those that rely on governments and courts live their lives waiting for the next handout. Waiting for someone else to support them, waiting for someone else to fix all their problems.
Your so called injured worker can go to any doctor under his health insurance to receive and pay for necessary medical care.
Your argument that he will not even get an aspirin only regards to repayment under a workers comp claim.
So he can get better, AND if he can PROVE injury was employers fault he or his health insurance co. will be reimbursed, BUT only if the care received was necessary. So if he got a nose job at the same time as cast for broken leg-then nose job would not be reimbursed.
WHAT THE &?3@ IS WRONG WITH THAT???????
You are acting as though employee is entitled to all sorts of money cause he had an accident. He needs to prove someone else at fault..so what! He needs to prove any care was necessary…so what! That is the real world with health insurance for any individual-care will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
You need to move to Canada Dude, cause you think people are entitled to everything!!!!!!!!!
Calif. Governor Picks Insurance Industry Lobbyist for Deputy Chief of Staff
December 15, 2005
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has chosen an insurance industry lobbyist to be his deputy chief of staff and senior advisor for policy development, a new position.Starting at the new year, Dan Dunmoyer will leave his post as president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California.
In his new position, Dunmoyer, a Republican, will serve under Susan Kennedy, a Democrat who Schwarzenegger recently named his new chief of staff. Before joining the insurance federation in 1989, Dunmoyer worked for the Assembly Republican Caucus, where he developed legislative and public policy strategies.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2005/12/15/63013.htm
=========================================
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v JACKSON
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9410095.html
Appellant Clayton Jackson, a [American Insurance Association (AIA)] lobbyist for the insurance industry, was charged with racketeering, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering, and mail fraud for his part in offering bribes to California state Senator Alan Robbins.
Jackson was convicted.
B. Racketeering Act 5 – Workers\’ Compensation
During the course of tape-recorded conversations, Jackson offered Robbins a $250,000 bribe. (Unknown to Jackson, Robbins had already been caught and had agreed to wear a wire in consideration for a reduced sentence.) Jackson promised this substantial reward if Robbins could bring under the jurisdiction of Robbins\’ friendly insurance committee an upcoming workers\’ compensation measure that would abolish the minimum rate law. Over a period of months, Jackson and Robbins discussed the outlines of the deal. Jackson promised to raise the money from the small insurance companies he represented, and who would be wiped out if the workers\’ compensation minimum rate law were abolished.
Jackson solicited donations from several insurance executives, telling them that the money would be used to establish a coalition of similar companies backed by a political action committee.
I could care less.
As far as I am concerned California is Red China
\”Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money………..\” by MUD
=============================
Sen. Lott Sues State Farm Insurance Co. in Katrina Damage
By HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 15,10:03 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_re_us/katrina_lott_lawsuit
JACKSON, Miss. – U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) is suing his insurance company over his beachfront Pascagoula home, which was leveled by Hurricane Katrina.
The law office of Lott\’s brother-in-law, high-profile plaintiff\’s Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs, filed the federal lawsuit Thursday on behalf of Lott and his wife against State Farm.
The case is part of an ongoing wind-versus-water-damage showdown between insurance companies and thousands of storm victims. The issue is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding. The companies contend they shouldn\’t have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies.
\”Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other south Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina,\” said Lott, R-Miss. \”There is no credible argument that there was no wind damage to my home in Pascagoula.\”
State Farm did not immediately respond to messages left by The Associated Press.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour has said he prefers to negotiate with insurance companies, saying lawsuits could force the companies out of Mississippi.
However, Attorney General Jim Hood, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippians with standard homeowner\’s policies, says the companies should cover hurricane damage no matter if the loss is from wind damage or a storm surge. Hood says damages could cost billions.
Scruggs, who also lost his Pascagoula home, led the charge in the landmark tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, and has promised to use his clout to get insurance companies to pay up.
Lott said he has exhausted all other options and had no choice but to turn to the courts.
\”My hope is that this litigation will set a precedent for the thousands of other Mississippi homeowners holding policies for coverage against hurricane wind damage that are not being honored by their insurance companies for Katrina,\” he said.
To paraphrase you\’re statement, Mr. MUD,
Isn\’t the insurance industry are acting as though they are entitled to all sorts of money from the government just because they had an terrorist attack.
The insurance companies need to prove it was \”one incident or two\”..so what! They need to prove reinsurance was necessary…so what!
That is the real world with insurance for any reinsurance will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
(Where is this required in the Constitution for the government to subsidize any industry?)
====================================
Mr. MUD,
How is the government providing reinsurance to a private industry NOT a form of corporate welfare?
Isn\’t the government providing private companies with reinsurance a for terrorism an example of \”centralized planing\” we might better expect from communist state?
Or Do we all need help from the government from time to time?
Merry Christmas,
Mr. MUD
\”Are there no prisons and work houses and poor houses\”
aka Ebenezer Scrooge ; >)
====================================
House gives final approval on terror insurance
Dec 18, 2005  By Kristin Roberts Reuters
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1419047
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives has given final congressional approval to a bill to extend a set of federal guarantees to cover losses from terrorism, a program viewed by backers as vital to key U.S. industries.
By voice vote, the House on Saturday approved the measure one day after it won passage in the Senate. It now goes to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
After reaching a last-minute compromise that led to Senate passage Friday night, the House approved the legislation to narrow the scope of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and extend it by two years. It had been set to expire on December 31.
\”TRIA has provided a federal backstop protecting policyholders against future catastrophic terrorist attacks,\” said House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican.
The measure was first enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks to keep construction and the economy moving at a time when wary insurers were reluctant to offer coverage.
Under the program, insurers must make terrorism coverage available and in return, the U.S. government guarantees it will bear a large percentage of future losses above certain thresholds.
The property and insurance industries pushed for an extension of TRIA, arguing that nothing has changed since September 11  they still cannot judge the likelihood of attack and therefore cannot price policies.
But the White House and many Republicans had opposed extending TRIA without curbing taxpayers\’ potential liability.
The compromise bill narrows TRIA by removing some insurance lines from the program and raising the size of a terrorist event that triggers federal assistance from $5 million under the current program to $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. It also boosts insurer deductibles, among other things.
Industry officials said they were pleased Congress had come to an agreement. But some said the deal failed to address long-term issues.
I am not in favor of TRIA. I do not care if it is a business or individual that wants a hand-out. Either cover the events or exclude them, that is their(ins. co\’s.) choice. If no one will pay premium for this, we will survive just like before. Government will only exasberate the issue. Think of Social Security…intended to add to individuals retirement income as a safety net. Because it is now a \’RIGHT\’, very few save for retirement and spend all assets when they come in. Was retirement security repaired? No…people now live on the safety net and constantly want more.
GIVE A MAN A FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY, TEACH A MAN TO FISH AND FEED HIM FOR A LIFE-TIME.
Remember the story of the ant and grasshopper? One worked hard and saved food for the cold winter, while the other lived for the day. When winter came the grasshopper was begging for food from the ant. Seniors, the so called poor, businesses and others demanding the government solve and provide for all their wants and needs-we are being destroyed as a country and going broke because few will work hard to provide for their own families let alone those who truelly need assistance.