Farmers Insurance Will Pay $9.9 Million

July 20, 2005

  • July 20, 2005 at 8:59 am
    Nortriptyline Patient says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Current findings and future directions on evidence-based treatments:

    Try wearing shoes that fit Healthnet.

    Not mental health service’s shoes for worker’s compensatin injuries.

  • July 20, 2005 at 9:34 am
    Tour de Crap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What I have experienced:

    1. Structured response and conferred cooperatiom of Medi-Cal Fraud: (Tenet Healthcare, HCA).

    2. Peek-A-Boo treatments, clinical appointments, billing information: (State Farm Insurance, Cal-Comp, Voluntary Plan Administrator’s.)

    3. Empirically supported with varying levels of assistance to HMO funded doctor’s: (Santa Clara County Medical Society, California Medical Board, American Medical Board.)

    4. We grant the passage of fake medical records on varying levels. (Industrial Medical Council)

    5. Assisted in the writing of (2) medical reports showing “your” severely disturbed behavior. Who needs psychiatric drugs? Dr. Arthur ________.

    Why treatment fails:

    Other comments: Working was my disturbed behavior.

  • July 20, 2005 at 6:35 am
    Consumer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hell, what insurer does NOT disagree with an adverse verdict. Farmers: shame on you, pay the verdict, pick up your pants and go home!

  • July 21, 2005 at 9:13 am
    FORMER FARMERS AGENT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I LOVE THE WHY IT WAS TOLD FARMERS GET YOU BACK AND SET YOU BACK. IN”(COURT)”
    WHEN YOU REPORT A CLAIM YOU WILL HERE FROM FARMERS ATTORNEY TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO. AND THEY WILL DO PUT THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE LOOP TO GET THEM TO WALK AWAY FROM THE CLIAM. A HAVE SEEN IT ONLY FROM ONE COMPANY FARMERS INSURANCE ONLY IN THE LAST 26 YEARS. THEY DO NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER COMPANIES DO.
    PAY AS ISURANCE COMPANY PER CONTRACT AND BE JUST.

  • July 21, 2005 at 11:09 am
    DM 78 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not so long ago, Farmers own claims adjusters had to take them to court for violating California’s overtime law. Farmers paid them $40 million. No wonder customers are leaving Farmers in droves. They have fallen to 8th place nationally, when just three years ago they ranked 3rd.
    This is a company you really can hate. Why should you have to constantly sue your company to do what is right? Farmers gets you back to where you belong…IN COURT.

  • July 21, 2005 at 12:36 pm
    Insurance Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What was once a proud company is now the Enron/Worldcom of the insurance industry.

  • July 21, 2005 at 12:46 pm
    Always Learning says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am glad Farmers lost.

    On the policies we issue, the homeowners are additional insureds and the association carrier owes them the defense.

    Punative damages, you bet. Anytime you have to take an insurance company to court to get them to adhere to theier policy, they should pay. Afterall, they force their terms and conditions on the consumer, live up to your deal.

  • July 21, 2005 at 12:47 pm
    compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe I am missing the boat on this one, but shouldn’t have the condo owner’s CPL carrier defended them instead of the condo associations carrier since they were sued individually?

  • July 21, 2005 at 2:17 am
    cmc,jr. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m sure there is more to the story with Farmers but it is very unlikely that these two condo owners bothered getting CPL or any other type of personal insurance to dovetail with the condo association insurance. But if these gals get the money then the 85 year old Wassen can sue them directly for their personal liability in opening the garage door on her.

  • July 21, 2005 at 2:44 am
    Julianna says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Did the injury take place on the owners property or common grounds owned by the association?

    Why oh why would Farmers have to defend the two condo owners? I am assuming they were NOT the named insureds because Farmers DID defend the condo association-their policyholder.

    Did these 2 women have a condo owners policy that would have provided liability coverage for the injuries? Perhaps not and that’s why they went after the deep pocket-Farmers Insurance.

    When will people be responsible for their own ignorance.
    $10 million dollars?? Judges and juries need a reality check.

    Looks like the lottery comes in many forms.

  • July 21, 2005 at 3:53 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Julianna said it right. A condo owners policy was available to Walket and Williams The liability on that policy would have protected them but they chose not to purchase and now they are looking for deep pocket. There were never an insured/ insurer relationship between willaims/Walker and Farmers.

  • July 21, 2005 at 4:05 am
    Gomer Pyle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Where is the jurisdiction for the verdict? Washington? New Mexico? Idaho? Hawaii?

  • July 21, 2005 at 4:36 am
    I'm a Russian DM from Calif says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This case was litigated in Los Angeles. The Condo Assn policy was to have covered these two women for any liability which occurred in the “common areas.” Farmers loses $9 million and 100,000 more customers. Name one other company that sues it’s own policyholders, or is sued by it’s own employees. Farmers is the worst.
    http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=BWIRE:100&story=200507152246_BWR__BW5551

  • July 23, 2005 at 3:20 am
    John Peters says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is the same company that created a mold crisis when they refused to address the Ballard’s concerns in TX.

  • July 25, 2005 at 10:53 am
    phillip says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    sounds like another o j jury to me or a shark attorney saw some deep pocket sense when do companys cover people that don’t buy there own insurance

  • July 25, 2005 at 11:32 am
    Julianna says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You think the company created the mold crisis? I think it is our legal system. Judges mostly. They’ve been out of touch with reality for a long time.

    Folks need to realize that s*** happens. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and there isn’t always someone with which to place the blame. Be glad no one died.

    Get over it or get therapy.

  • July 25, 2005 at 11:57 am
    DOG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NO ! She’s wrong one of the most important coverage’s within an Condo Association policy is LIABILITY FOR COMMON AREA period ! HO-6 policy, only covers condo premise under the care and control of the named insured

  • July 25, 2005 at 12:01 pm
    someone please HELP farmers says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NO ! She’s wrong one of the most important coverage’s within an Condo Association policy is LIABILITY FOR COMMON AREA period ! HO-6 policy, only covers condo premise under the care and control of the named insured. NOT OUTSIDE THE PREMISE…..Farmer agent go back to a real ins school.

  • July 27, 2005 at 2:28 am
    Current Farmers employee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    After reading that ridiculously illegible post, now I know why FORMER FARMERS AGENT is no longer employed.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*