California Administrative Law Judge Orders State Farm to Refund $85M

August 9, 2016

  • August 10, 2016 at 2:55 pm
    Doug Spencer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Why does the California Department of Insurance continue to “frisk” large state admitted carriers?
    State Farm is a business that needs to be “profitable’ over extended claim and investment return on reserves cycles?
    Can the state “divine” the future homeowner risk and assume a company “overcharged” since 7/15/15?
    Less state regulation by DOI may provide more stable security in the claims end of the business cycle. Micro management of just the front of cycle premium (control area) may be very short sighted.

    • March 30, 2017 at 4:18 pm
      DAVID JONES says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Poor state farm. Getting cosmic carma. Sounds like they got what they deserve. The issue is over its overcharging to get a competitive advantage in business, not overcharging to fairly compete as the prior post seems to whine about. The question that should be asked is what has not been asked. Why did the insurance rate department rate department not turn down State Farms rate request back in 2015 and allow for the overcharging of it’s policyholders in the first place?

  • August 10, 2016 at 11:38 pm
    Dora Sher says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Does this include renters and Condo insurance?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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