Although I am sure this was well intended, seems a bit of a conflit, right? Additional coverages and claims & underwriting recs from attorney’s. Unless I am mistaken, the insurance industry is what basically supports the attorney biz. How would these (mostly directed to the Federal level – very smart!) suggestions help in anyway, other than line the pockets of the litigation teams who are “helping” the poor, uninsured folks.
Let the ABA and its membership fund a cat.fund in Bermuda, if are so concerned.
How is any of this being paid for? Does the ABA really think there is a capital markets magic money machine? Ask Charlie Crist how that worked for him, especially now. And why do they want me to subsidize somebody’s lifestyle choice to live near the shore? For once, a little personal responsibility please.
We’ve all been hit in the head by one ACORN. Ok, ok, we’re sorry for taking that initial knee jerk reaction to warn the world that Obama’s activist team was shaking the wires holding up the sky. We are ashamed of living in fear.
In walk the trial lawyers and the ACLU with wire clippers in hand. Should we be worried?
Ok, I couldn’t even stomach the thought of continuing to read the final third of this tripe. Lawyer speak requires the proper mindset, and I just don’t have it right now.
I can’t tell you how much better everyone should feel that the trial lawyers have arrived and they’re ready to help.
For goodness sakes! The cavalry has arrived. The sad part is, there are people that will actually believe it’s true.
Oh, and I’ll bet the carriers are oh-so grateful that they are working to break down the barriers that keep those insurance companies from being able to take on that extra risk.
What???
There is simply no sanity left in this world any longer. And, the longer we go, the more sheep are bred, the shorter the time-span before all hell breaks loose.
Just to scream at a brick wall – why is ANY of this, the Federal Government’s job? Don’t they have enough to do with Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation, Protecting our Borders, or taking care of our roads and bridges? How about fixing the truly largest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen – Social Security.
It seems they have plenty on their plate without stepping into the marketplaces and screwing things up even further.
Here’s a hint. Take the money being spent on the FEMA, kill the agency, and use that money to finish the approved border wall and we will ALL be better off and less exposed to an event that will require Federal Emergency Management. Since you can’t hand out ice in any kind of effective manner, maybe you should try something you are good at doing – protecting America.
I could be wrong, it sounds like a bunch of lawyers wanting to make sure the money is there when they assist in collecting on a loss. Also more defense opportunity to help the poor souls being sued or jailed for not following rules on const.
Unless I’m mistaken weren’t these recommendations made by insurance lawyers, i.e., lawyers employed by insurers to defend claims agains them, rather than plaintiff lawyers? If so, they may be making these recommendations to avert future lawsuits over unsettled damage claims from what they’ve experienced thus far.
Well, maybe. But, I don’t think so. Just because you’re an “Insurance Lawyer” does not immediately translate to insurance company lawyer.
You need to read the individual proposals and try to envision an insurance company executive being desirous of such things. Again, I don’t think so.
As I’ve said in another post, I’m all for getting more folks insured for Flood. And, I think insurance companies can do it better than a separate Federal Flood policy from the government. When you spread that risk to ALL households and businesses, with graded premium based upon actual risk, the costs will go down. But, the average consumer is NOT going to want their policies going up 10-25% (depending on what part of the country you are located) to include a risk they’ve already determined is not worth covering. As an agent, I wish they would, and I don’t think the Federal Government should be in that business anyway. The reason they got into it is because folks started feeling like the Government should take care of their every need. That’s not a constitutional reason.
Here’s the proposals after going through my strainer.
1. Broaden availability of insurance – the only way to do that is for government to subsidize it. Where is insurance unavailable? Coastal islands and mouths of volcanoes are the only places where I’m aware.
2. Implore (Let’s face it, that’s a term for the far left) Congress to make insurance more affordable – Doesn’t that just “feel good”. But, what can they do. Again, subsidize and/or abscond. If it can be offered more affordably with a profit (which is required in order to remain in business and fulfill the promises that are purchased), somebody is going to do it. There are more than 2-3 insurance companies in the business. Competition ALWAYS works when it comes to pricing. That is, if it’s allowed.
3. Urge bad investments – isn’t that what we just suffered through (or, correctly – will continue to suffer through for several generations) with the Fannie Mae et al problem. Oh yes, let’s urge regulations that require more bad faith and encourage unfounded investment principles. Great plan!
4. Address the needs of the suffering – Don’t we just “feel good” once again. Um, good Lord, Mr. Marx. Where have you been hiding? Distribution of government support? Forbearance (read, no need to pay) of mortgage loans? Modifications to MORE distribution of financial assistance? Well, some of you needed to experience the Katrina “evacuees” and their gorging on (while manipulating/playing everyone around them) on the government teat. I’m not sure if they are paying for the apartment rent to THIS DAY. Yeah, that’s what we need is more distribution of wealth.
5. Seek to ensure available and affordable insurance by mitigating loss from future catastrophes – this means they want the government to take over and be in control of more money flow. They’ve done such a wonderful job with Social Security, I’m sure they would leave that money set aside to pay those catastrophic losses when the eventually happen. MORE government control of our lives. Well, no thanks. I’ve seen the bureaucrats in action with FEMA. They exude the cliché’ “We’re from the govmint, and we’re here to hep ya”. Again, no thanks. I’ll take my chances with an insurance company exec, with some degree of oversight from the state insurance department any day.
6. Urge better building. Well, that was thrown in mostly as a guise to make the entire cause seem lofty and a good idea. Oh yeah, and the ability to sue more builders doesn’t hurt either. Ok, fine. Stronger building codes? I can go for that. I’ll give you that one.
The last paragraph probably leads towards Federal Regulation of the entire industry. Again, no thanks. States should do it. The feds are not better prepared or able to do much in my opinion.
Satisfied now? You made me read the last 3rd of the article. It wasn’t so bad after I’d finally stopped puking over the other ridiculous article of the day. You merely need to be prepared and properly situated mentally to be able to read lawyer-speak.
appeal lots of claims
An insurance company may not make unreasonable refusals to pay claims. It is not to exploit the legal system by appealing almost all of the arbitration awards in favor of policyholders as a way to force a settlement or compromise of claims. The insurance company is allowed to appeal, but appeals can’t be a standard business practice aimed at forcing you to take less than you’re owed on a claim.
Can’t refuse or delay claims without a darn good reason
An insurance company may not refuse to pay your claim or delay payment without a valid reason. It must provide you with a reasonable explanation why your claim was denied or why a compromise settlement was offered. If you are denied, the insurer must provide you with the denial in writing and reference specific provisions, conditions or exclusions in your policy that allows for denial. The insurer is required to make a good faith attempt to process a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims in which liability is reasonably clear.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. Unreasonable refusals to pay claims!
Here we go again with the multiple name State Farm ranter. They claim not to be paid for these constant rants, but it’s hard to believe. Boring and stupid.
nobody important$9.5 million in punitive
fine $25 million in punitive damages-$456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract .Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders- MR nobody important- GREAT NAME FOR YOU.SO SORRY YOU THINK IT,S Boring and stupid.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, not that I have any love for State Farm. Personally, I love to see them getting bad press. Farmers and Allstate too. But, lets get real.
First, every company has had people that did the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Until we figure out how to make people perfect, there will always be instances when courts (and lawyers, God forbid) are necessary to correct a wrong. I think I’ve read somewhere that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.
Nothing’s new.
Having said that, the dollar award amounts you indicate are relatively small, save the two large awards resulting from the use of after-market, or generic as you called them, parts. Well, I fail to see the problem with that business strategy before there were codes/laws prohibiting the use. Now, companies that want to use them, just write them into their insurance contract. So what? I use generic medicine most everytime I get a prescription from the doctor. Just because the lawyers found a jury/judge that would allow an award for that previously unaddressed problem, doesn’t mean the concept was conceived in any evil manner. In fact, it’s just good business. They found a better way to build their mousetrap, until the lawyers saw an opening for their own mousetrap.
Second, we all know that just because an employee says something happened to them from their superiors, does not make it gospel truth. Now, it could have happened, so I’m not saying it didn’t. I don’t know how you can cite allegations as fact.
There is no question that the business culture at State Farm has changed from their roots. They are leaving the Mutual structure, where the interests of the policyholders were primary, and that says enough all by itself. Are they greedy, probably. But, I think even so, most claims are handled properly for their policyholders.
Once again, the reason State Farm flourished years ago was because the previous status quo was not filling a need. Now, things have changed, and I believe the big 3 mentioned no longer fill the need from the public. So what. It sounds like a good time for a reputable smaller company to come in and fill that needs, build a new empire. That’s the wonderful thing about a free market, Mr. Multi-Names.
Yes, your comments that have nothing to do with the various topics you post to are boring and stupid. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you that the entire insurance industry and State Farm specifically makes that poster a criminal. You cut and paste this trash over and over and over. You will not accomplish anything or win over anyone with these boring and repetitive posts. If they are your opinion, fine, but I am free to think differently. I am also free to think that you are a moron or are simply being paid to post this garbage, and it is garbage.
BILOXI, Miss. (MCT) — In some cases, State Farm’s top leadership prefers not to share or even keep records that offer insight into how policyholder claims are handled, according to court records.
Chairman and CEO Edward B. Rust Jr. said in sworn testimony earlier this month that no minutes are kept of quarterly meetings held by the company’s top management, the Chairman’s Council, and that By Anita Lee
McClatchy Newspapers
Advertisement
BILOXI, Miss. (MCT) — In some cases, State Farm’s top leadership prefers not to share or even keep records that offer insight into how policyholder claims are handled, according to court records.
Chairman and CEO Edward B. Rust Jr. said in sworn testimony earlier this month that no minutes are kept of quarterly meetings held by the company’s top management, the Chairman’s Council, and that policyholders have no right to information about an investigation State Farm Insurance Cos. has ordered of its relationship with Haag Engineering Co.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company doesn’t “intend to-;try this-;case in the media.”
“State Farm stands by testimony given by President and Vice Chairman Vince Trosino, who said when asked about these allegations, ‘It’s not part of our system. It’s not part of our core values. It’s not what made us the most successful property and casualty insurer, life insurer, in the country.'”
Juries in two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have found Haag provided biased reports to State Farm to minimize or deny policyholder claims. Mississippi’s attorney general currently is conducting a grand jury investigation to determine whether State Farm and other insurers denied Hurricane Katrina claims through the use of fraudulent engineering reports.
Haag denies bias, but State Farm suspended business with the company in June and ordered an independent investigation after an Oklahoma jury awarded a total of $13 million to a policyholder over tornado damages. Subsequent trials are set to determine damages for 70 other policyholders, all of whom had claims investigated by Haag.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients.”
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
to information about an investigation State Farm Insurance Cos. has ordered of its relationship with Haag Engineering Co.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company doesn’t “intend to-;try this-;case in the media.”
“State Farm stands by testimony given by President and Vice Chairman Vince Trosino, who said when asked about these allegations, ‘It’s not part of our system. It’s not part of our core values. It’s not what made us the most successful property and casualty insurer, life insurer, in the country.'”
Juries in two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have found Haag provided biased reports to State Farm to minimize or deny policyholder claims. Mississippi’s attorney general currently is conducting a grand jury investigation to determine whether State Farm and other insurers denied Hurricane Katrina claims through the use of fraudulent engineering reports.
Haag denies bias, but State Farm suspended business with the company in June and ordered an independent investigation after an Oklahoma jury awarded a total of $13 million to a policyholder over tornado damages. Subsequent trials are set to determine damages for 70 other policyholders, all of whom had claims investigated by Haag.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients.”
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State Farm’s investigation of Haag.
Go ahead and waste your time. You don’t seem to realize that those of us with actual knowlege of the busines are just bored with your laughable posts. Mr. Multiple Names, your posts are easy to spot and we can easily ignore them. It’s your time you are wasting. I won’t try to change your mind on anything since you don’t listen to anyone who responds to your “facts”. This will be my last response to you. I hope others will ignore you also.
Ok, in regards to Haig Engineering. Has it occurred to Mr. Multi Names that perhaps this contractor was doing thier best to sell themselves to State Farm by showing them a return, which St Farm could have legitimately thought were correct analytic determinations?
As educated as Rust Jr might be, he’s no structural engineer, is he? And, neither are claims managers.
Could it have been Haig that was greedy and wanted to self-promote, rather than the insurance company doing the direction? And, yeah, if State Farm were performing a legitimate investigation, they would not want to, in the process, leave any extra exposure for lawsuit in the process. So, I guess they wouldn’t want their inside investigation made public. That’s not necessarily evil, it’s just prudent.
Either party could be the culprit. That’s all I’m saying.
This is not the first time State Farm has been involved in improper selling and titling of vehicles. If you continue to turn over more rocks in your investigation, you will find more evidence of wrongdoing.
This settlement was a criminal act to make another criminal act go away.
Imagine being able to commit murder and the having the ability to sentence yourself. Only an insurer could get away with this.
We finished number two to Amica for customer service. And anyone who knows anything about the replacement parts lawsuit knows it was bogus. Agents certainly know it. In some states it is law that replacement parts be MADE AVAILABLE TO HELP KEEP COSTS DOWN FOR CONSUMERS. In direct conflict with the outcome of that trial.
I know that some attorneys are not able to separate the professional from the personal. For you my advise is ‘buy it from someone else then’. For a company the size of State Farm to pay what they owe, over and over, when called upon, and still recieve the highest rating for customer service? I guess you would have to call that a success. Lets look at Katrina. Who behaved badly there?
Scumbag attorneys.
You attorneys worry about your own nest.
We in the insurance industry will take care of clients and the regulatory bodies we answer to.
You lawyers wish you were as honorable as most of those in my industry.
So the lawyers are proposing that flood insurance premiums be actuarially sound, that building codes be strengthened and enforced, and that where government helps it should not compete with private markets. These proposals are right out of the insurance industry’s own playbook. But rather than actually read the ABA proposals and identify common ground, a few would rather go on tirades against all lawyers and perpetuate tired stereotypes. Very predictable but not very constructive.
When we have a dip in the economy you will see people trying to stir up more business and this is what I see the attorneys doing here. regardless of what is done to the insurance industry, and it should be kept on the State level, the attorneys will always find ways to suck all the water out of the bucket, even if their are no holes.
The Trial Lawyers have earned all the scepticism reflected of industry people in this posting. Don’t expect any less. Our critics certainly don’t listen to us either.
THE LAW. No person engaged in business of insurance shall engage in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of such business as methods, act, or practices are defined pursuant to subsection of this section. ”unfair ” ”unfair ” Remmber THE LAW.
Now that’s what the headline should be.
Thank you.
Thank you very much!
Yeah? I have a bunch of unmet urges, too!
Although I am sure this was well intended, seems a bit of a conflit, right? Additional coverages and claims & underwriting recs from attorney’s. Unless I am mistaken, the insurance industry is what basically supports the attorney biz. How would these (mostly directed to the Federal level – very smart!) suggestions help in anyway, other than line the pockets of the litigation teams who are “helping” the poor, uninsured folks.
Let the ABA and its membership fund a cat.fund in Bermuda, if are so concerned.
Politicians in banking?
“Lawyers Hope to Fix Catastrophe- Related Insurance Problems”
I am glad to see I’m not the only person that has a huge problem with the title of this article.
How is any of this being paid for? Does the ABA really think there is a capital markets magic money machine? Ask Charlie Crist how that worked for him, especially now. And why do they want me to subsidize somebody’s lifestyle choice to live near the shore? For once, a little personal responsibility please.
Lawyers hope to increase their bank account balances would be a more appropriate title. That’s what happens when IJ takes press releases.
We’ve all been hit in the head by one ACORN. Ok, ok, we’re sorry for taking that initial knee jerk reaction to warn the world that Obama’s activist team was shaking the wires holding up the sky. We are ashamed of living in fear.
In walk the trial lawyers and the ACLU with wire clippers in hand. Should we be worried?
Ok, I couldn’t even stomach the thought of continuing to read the final third of this tripe. Lawyer speak requires the proper mindset, and I just don’t have it right now.
I can’t tell you how much better everyone should feel that the trial lawyers have arrived and they’re ready to help.
For goodness sakes! The cavalry has arrived. The sad part is, there are people that will actually believe it’s true.
Oh, and I’ll bet the carriers are oh-so grateful that they are working to break down the barriers that keep those insurance companies from being able to take on that extra risk.
What???
There is simply no sanity left in this world any longer. And, the longer we go, the more sheep are bred, the shorter the time-span before all hell breaks loose.
Just to scream at a brick wall – why is ANY of this, the Federal Government’s job? Don’t they have enough to do with Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation, Protecting our Borders, or taking care of our roads and bridges? How about fixing the truly largest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen – Social Security.
It seems they have plenty on their plate without stepping into the marketplaces and screwing things up even further.
Here’s a hint. Take the money being spent on the FEMA, kill the agency, and use that money to finish the approved border wall and we will ALL be better off and less exposed to an event that will require Federal Emergency Management. Since you can’t hand out ice in any kind of effective manner, maybe you should try something you are good at doing – protecting America.
I could be wrong, it sounds like a bunch of lawyers wanting to make sure the money is there when they assist in collecting on a loss. Also more defense opportunity to help the poor souls being sued or jailed for not following rules on const.
Unless I’m mistaken weren’t these recommendations made by insurance lawyers, i.e., lawyers employed by insurers to defend claims agains them, rather than plaintiff lawyers? If so, they may be making these recommendations to avert future lawsuits over unsettled damage claims from what they’ve experienced thus far.
“Let’s kill all the lawyers”
William Shakespeare
End of Press Release
Well, maybe. But, I don’t think so. Just because you’re an “Insurance Lawyer” does not immediately translate to insurance company lawyer.
You need to read the individual proposals and try to envision an insurance company executive being desirous of such things. Again, I don’t think so.
As I’ve said in another post, I’m all for getting more folks insured for Flood. And, I think insurance companies can do it better than a separate Federal Flood policy from the government. When you spread that risk to ALL households and businesses, with graded premium based upon actual risk, the costs will go down. But, the average consumer is NOT going to want their policies going up 10-25% (depending on what part of the country you are located) to include a risk they’ve already determined is not worth covering. As an agent, I wish they would, and I don’t think the Federal Government should be in that business anyway. The reason they got into it is because folks started feeling like the Government should take care of their every need. That’s not a constitutional reason.
Here’s the proposals after going through my strainer.
1. Broaden availability of insurance – the only way to do that is for government to subsidize it. Where is insurance unavailable? Coastal islands and mouths of volcanoes are the only places where I’m aware.
2. Implore (Let’s face it, that’s a term for the far left) Congress to make insurance more affordable – Doesn’t that just “feel good”. But, what can they do. Again, subsidize and/or abscond. If it can be offered more affordably with a profit (which is required in order to remain in business and fulfill the promises that are purchased), somebody is going to do it. There are more than 2-3 insurance companies in the business. Competition ALWAYS works when it comes to pricing. That is, if it’s allowed.
3. Urge bad investments – isn’t that what we just suffered through (or, correctly – will continue to suffer through for several generations) with the Fannie Mae et al problem. Oh yes, let’s urge regulations that require more bad faith and encourage unfounded investment principles. Great plan!
4. Address the needs of the suffering – Don’t we just “feel good” once again. Um, good Lord, Mr. Marx. Where have you been hiding? Distribution of government support? Forbearance (read, no need to pay) of mortgage loans? Modifications to MORE distribution of financial assistance? Well, some of you needed to experience the Katrina “evacuees” and their gorging on (while manipulating/playing everyone around them) on the government teat. I’m not sure if they are paying for the apartment rent to THIS DAY. Yeah, that’s what we need is more distribution of wealth.
5. Seek to ensure available and affordable insurance by mitigating loss from future catastrophes – this means they want the government to take over and be in control of more money flow. They’ve done such a wonderful job with Social Security, I’m sure they would leave that money set aside to pay those catastrophic losses when the eventually happen. MORE government control of our lives. Well, no thanks. I’ve seen the bureaucrats in action with FEMA. They exude the cliché’ “We’re from the govmint, and we’re here to hep ya”. Again, no thanks. I’ll take my chances with an insurance company exec, with some degree of oversight from the state insurance department any day.
6. Urge better building. Well, that was thrown in mostly as a guise to make the entire cause seem lofty and a good idea. Oh yeah, and the ability to sue more builders doesn’t hurt either. Ok, fine. Stronger building codes? I can go for that. I’ll give you that one.
The last paragraph probably leads towards Federal Regulation of the entire industry. Again, no thanks. States should do it. The feds are not better prepared or able to do much in my opinion.
Satisfied now? You made me read the last 3rd of the article. It wasn’t so bad after I’d finally stopped puking over the other ridiculous article of the day. You merely need to be prepared and properly situated mentally to be able to read lawyer-speak.
I just have a? if you leave your bathtub running and it over flows will insurance paid for my wood floor and my shoes?
appeal lots of claims
An insurance company may not make unreasonable refusals to pay claims. It is not to exploit the legal system by appealing almost all of the arbitration awards in favor of policyholders as a way to force a settlement or compromise of claims. The insurance company is allowed to appeal, but appeals can’t be a standard business practice aimed at forcing you to take less than you’re owed on a claim.
Can’t refuse or delay claims without a darn good reason
An insurance company may not refuse to pay your claim or delay payment without a valid reason. It must provide you with a reasonable explanation why your claim was denied or why a compromise settlement was offered. If you are denied, the insurer must provide you with the denial in writing and reference specific provisions, conditions or exclusions in your policy that allows for denial. The insurer is required to make a good faith attempt to process a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims in which liability is reasonably clear.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. Unreasonable refusals to pay claims!
Here we go again with the multiple name State Farm ranter. They claim not to be paid for these constant rants, but it’s hard to believe. Boring and stupid.
nobody important$9.5 million in punitive
fine $25 million in punitive damages-$456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract .Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders- MR nobody important- GREAT NAME FOR YOU.SO SORRY YOU THINK IT,S Boring and stupid.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, not that I have any love for State Farm. Personally, I love to see them getting bad press. Farmers and Allstate too. But, lets get real.
First, every company has had people that did the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Until we figure out how to make people perfect, there will always be instances when courts (and lawyers, God forbid) are necessary to correct a wrong. I think I’ve read somewhere that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.
Nothing’s new.
Having said that, the dollar award amounts you indicate are relatively small, save the two large awards resulting from the use of after-market, or generic as you called them, parts. Well, I fail to see the problem with that business strategy before there were codes/laws prohibiting the use. Now, companies that want to use them, just write them into their insurance contract. So what? I use generic medicine most everytime I get a prescription from the doctor. Just because the lawyers found a jury/judge that would allow an award for that previously unaddressed problem, doesn’t mean the concept was conceived in any evil manner. In fact, it’s just good business. They found a better way to build their mousetrap, until the lawyers saw an opening for their own mousetrap.
Second, we all know that just because an employee says something happened to them from their superiors, does not make it gospel truth. Now, it could have happened, so I’m not saying it didn’t. I don’t know how you can cite allegations as fact.
There is no question that the business culture at State Farm has changed from their roots. They are leaving the Mutual structure, where the interests of the policyholders were primary, and that says enough all by itself. Are they greedy, probably. But, I think even so, most claims are handled properly for their policyholders.
Once again, the reason State Farm flourished years ago was because the previous status quo was not filling a need. Now, things have changed, and I believe the big 3 mentioned no longer fill the need from the public. So what. It sounds like a good time for a reputable smaller company to come in and fill that needs, build a new empire. That’s the wonderful thing about a free market, Mr. Multi-Names.
Have a great day!
relatively small . My GOD relatively small
Yes, your comments that have nothing to do with the various topics you post to are boring and stupid. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you that the entire insurance industry and State Farm specifically makes that poster a criminal. You cut and paste this trash over and over and over. You will not accomplish anything or win over anyone with these boring and repetitive posts. If they are your opinion, fine, but I am free to think differently. I am also free to think that you are a moron or are simply being paid to post this garbage, and it is garbage.
By Anita Lee
McClatchy Newspapers
Advertisement
BILOXI, Miss. (MCT) — In some cases, State Farm’s top leadership prefers not to share or even keep records that offer insight into how policyholder claims are handled, according to court records.
Chairman and CEO Edward B. Rust Jr. said in sworn testimony earlier this month that no minutes are kept of quarterly meetings held by the company’s top management, the Chairman’s Council, and that By Anita Lee
McClatchy Newspapers
Advertisement
BILOXI, Miss. (MCT) — In some cases, State Farm’s top leadership prefers not to share or even keep records that offer insight into how policyholder claims are handled, according to court records.
Chairman and CEO Edward B. Rust Jr. said in sworn testimony earlier this month that no minutes are kept of quarterly meetings held by the company’s top management, the Chairman’s Council, and that policyholders have no right to information about an investigation State Farm Insurance Cos. has ordered of its relationship with Haag Engineering Co.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company doesn’t “intend to-;try this-;case in the media.”
“State Farm stands by testimony given by President and Vice Chairman Vince Trosino, who said when asked about these allegations, ‘It’s not part of our system. It’s not part of our core values. It’s not what made us the most successful property and casualty insurer, life insurer, in the country.'”
Juries in two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have found Haag provided biased reports to State Farm to minimize or deny policyholder claims. Mississippi’s attorney general currently is conducting a grand jury investigation to determine whether State Farm and other insurers denied Hurricane Katrina claims through the use of fraudulent engineering reports.
Haag denies bias, but State Farm suspended business with the company in June and ordered an independent investigation after an Oklahoma jury awarded a total of $13 million to a policyholder over tornado damages. Subsequent trials are set to determine damages for 70 other policyholders, all of whom had claims investigated by Haag.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients.”
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
to information about an investigation State Farm Insurance Cos. has ordered of its relationship with Haag Engineering Co.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company doesn’t “intend to-;try this-;case in the media.”
“State Farm stands by testimony given by President and Vice Chairman Vince Trosino, who said when asked about these allegations, ‘It’s not part of our system. It’s not part of our core values. It’s not what made us the most successful property and casualty insurer, life insurer, in the country.'”
Juries in two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have found Haag provided biased reports to State Farm to minimize or deny policyholder claims. Mississippi’s attorney general currently is conducting a grand jury investigation to determine whether State Farm and other insurers denied Hurricane Katrina claims through the use of fraudulent engineering reports.
Haag denies bias, but State Farm suspended business with the company in June and ordered an independent investigation after an Oklahoma jury awarded a total of $13 million to a policyholder over tornado damages. Subsequent trials are set to determine damages for 70 other policyholders, all of whom had claims investigated by Haag.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients.”
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
WATCH ME.
Go ahead and waste your time. You don’t seem to realize that those of us with actual knowlege of the busines are just bored with your laughable posts. Mr. Multiple Names, your posts are easy to spot and we can easily ignore them. It’s your time you are wasting. I won’t try to change your mind on anything since you don’t listen to anyone who responds to your “facts”. This will be my last response to you. I hope others will ignore you also.
iGnore who? Is there someone posting long articles about State Farm? I havnt noticed.
Ok …but, just one more thing first.
Well, besides figure out cut and paste.
Ok, in regards to Haig Engineering. Has it occurred to Mr. Multi Names that perhaps this contractor was doing thier best to sell themselves to State Farm by showing them a return, which St Farm could have legitimately thought were correct analytic determinations?
As educated as Rust Jr might be, he’s no structural engineer, is he? And, neither are claims managers.
Could it have been Haig that was greedy and wanted to self-promote, rather than the insurance company doing the direction? And, yeah, if State Farm were performing a legitimate investigation, they would not want to, in the process, leave any extra exposure for lawsuit in the process. So, I guess they wouldn’t want their inside investigation made public. That’s not necessarily evil, it’s just prudent.
Either party could be the culprit. That’s all I’m saying.
http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/investigation/article/a_total_loss/6187/
This is not the first time State Farm has been involved in improper selling and titling of vehicles. If you continue to turn over more rocks in your investigation, you will find more evidence of wrongdoing.
This settlement was a criminal act to make another criminal act go away.
Imagine being able to commit murder and the having the ability to sentence yourself. Only an insurer could get away with this.
We finished number two to Amica for customer service. And anyone who knows anything about the replacement parts lawsuit knows it was bogus. Agents certainly know it. In some states it is law that replacement parts be MADE AVAILABLE TO HELP KEEP COSTS DOWN FOR CONSUMERS. In direct conflict with the outcome of that trial.
I know that some attorneys are not able to separate the professional from the personal. For you my advise is ‘buy it from someone else then’. For a company the size of State Farm to pay what they owe, over and over, when called upon, and still recieve the highest rating for customer service? I guess you would have to call that a success. Lets look at Katrina. Who behaved badly there?
Scumbag attorneys.
You attorneys worry about your own nest.
We in the insurance industry will take care of clients and the regulatory bodies we answer to.
You lawyers wish you were as honorable as most of those in my industry.
Well said Gil Fin.
A-MEN!
So the lawyers are proposing that flood insurance premiums be actuarially sound, that building codes be strengthened and enforced, and that where government helps it should not compete with private markets. These proposals are right out of the insurance industry’s own playbook. But rather than actually read the ABA proposals and identify common ground, a few would rather go on tirades against all lawyers and perpetuate tired stereotypes. Very predictable but not very constructive.
Well, that’s certainly another perspective. Maybe you’re right. I hope so …but I’m not holding my breath.
I’ve had enough of this post, so I’m signing off. It was fun for a little while.
Next!
When we have a dip in the economy you will see people trying to stir up more business and this is what I see the attorneys doing here. regardless of what is done to the insurance industry, and it should be kept on the State level, the attorneys will always find ways to suck all the water out of the bucket, even if their are no holes.
The Trial Lawyers have earned all the scepticism reflected of industry people in this posting. Don’t expect any less. Our critics certainly don’t listen to us either.
THE LAW. No person engaged in business of insurance shall engage in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of such business as methods, act, or practices are defined pursuant to subsection of this section. ”unfair ” ”unfair ” Remmber THE LAW.
This is not the first time State Farm has been involved in improper selling and titling of vehicles
This will be my last response to you. I hope others will ignore you also- sorry it,s time to stop ignore things mr nobody important.
How would you feel if a bunch of state farmz crooks EMPLOYEES had sexes with your wife at a party and had TAPINGS OF IT?
That is why I am so angry at you INSURANCE PEOPLE>>
I have been humiliated, and people should know its a BAD COMPNAY FOR CHEETING.
I wont stop cutting and PASTING THIS STUFF.
trillion dollar .
cut a paste this movie
Comment:
http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/investigation/article/a_total_loss/6187/