Insurer Told to Pay $8 Million to Missouri Couple Acquitted of Fraud

December 7, 2005

  • December 7, 2005 at 7:05 am
    sf agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well, it seems that the good neighbor was not a good neighbor after all.

  • December 7, 2005 at 7:13 am
    Retired Underwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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!

  • December 7, 2005 at 7:26 am
    Kerwin Tschetter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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

    .

  • December 7, 2005 at 9:37 am
    Kerwin Tschetter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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

  • December 7, 2005 at 11:12 am
    urmom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ALL FAKE, ANYBODY READING THIS IN A SCHOOL CLASS IS READING A FAKE ARTICLE

  • December 7, 2005 at 11:17 am
    Garrett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    xxx.com GO THERE FOR FREE MONEY

  • December 7, 2005 at 1:35 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • December 7, 2005 at 1:54 am
    Deacon Jones says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • December 7, 2005 at 2:15 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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?

  • December 7, 2005 at 3:08 am
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

*