that little Dickie Scruggs could be on the outside looking in when the settlement is reached? Not much of an investment in the sisters who couldn\’t
protect confidential, proprietary information. Are the sisters being prosecuted, anyone?
Not sure about the sisters. Neither Dateline nor 20/20 have done a followup story on them.
It does sound like Dickie might be on the outside looking in on any settlement.
2. I am a former employee of State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (collectively,
\”State Farm\” or \”the Company\”). I was employed there from 1988
through mid-1996, and in fact separated during the pendency of
the Taylor litigation. Since August of 1994, I worked first in
the Automobile Company\’s so-called \”SAC\” unit (\”Suits Against the
Company\” unit) and then in the Fire Company\’s SAC unit. Later
these units were renamed, \”Litigation Units.\” My most recent job
title before separation from the Company was Claims Specialist.
My responsibilities included evaluating bad faith suits brought
against the Company by insureds, responding to discovery and
monitoring litigation. I did so in connection with the Taylor
litigation.
3. In this capacity, I am aware that there were many other State
Farm claims arising out of the Northridge earthquake like the
Taylors\’ involving unauthorized signatures by State Farm agents
or agency employees on applications omitting earthquake coverage.
At the time of the Taylor claim, the Company was well aware that
this was a problem. As a matter of practice, the Company would
pay these claims, if it believed that the forgery issue would be
brought to light and proven by the insured. Because of the
forgery issue in the Taylor case, if the case was not dismissed
on summary judgement, it was my impression that the claim was
going to be reconsidered. However, we were waiting to see if we
could save money on the Taylor claim by having summary judgement
granted, and as part of that plan I was instructed not to provide
certain relevant information at my depositions.
4. Specifically, my supervisor in the SAC unit, Vanessa Gudelj,
and her supervisor, John Poptanich, put pressure on me to
withhold the existence of documents memorializing certain State
Farm claims handling guidelines from plaintiffs\’ counsel Bernie
Bernheim at my deposition, which they believed, if revealed,
would defeat summary judgement and ultimately lead to payment of
the Taylors\’ claim. They pressured me into not revealing the
existence of claims handling documents which established
guidelines under which claims like the Taylors were to be
handled. These included a three ring binder called \”CATHR
Management Information and Memos Manual\” used and maintained by
Claim Superintendent Tinga Nicholson who was the Claim
Superintendent that denied the Taylors\’ claim. It was responsive
to the Taylors\’ discovery request and we simply chose not to
produce it. Similarly, Ms. Nicholson had prepared a breakdown
of earthquake claims in her unit (the SHU unit – see below) by
category of claim, and one of the categories was \”unauthorized
signatures.\” This document showed the percentage of total
earthquake claims which involved unauthorized signatures. This
document, too, was never produced.
5. The Taylors\’ claim was denied by personnel working in the
so-called \”Special Handling Unit.\” In addition to the claims
handling documents mentioned above, we never produced to Mr.
Bernheim a document memorializing a SHU meeting at which the
subject of unauthorized signatures on applications omitting
earthquake insurance was discussed. This document has a heading
as follows:
\”Problem areas
– Telephone apps [applications] – EQ [earthquake] has to be in
person.
Und. [Underwriting] was supposed to catch \’not signed\’
– in some cases the agent or staff signed it.\”
6. In the SAC unit, we knew that Rod Taylor\’s signature on the
application was clearly not his signature.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
19th day of September, 1996 at Ojai, California.
Everybody know,s The plaintiffs have alleged that\” Many hundreds , if not thousands, of individuals and / or entities have asserted Claims or have potential claims \” Against State Farm. Neither the plaintiffs nor State Farm has given the court any information from which the Court can determine with any reasonable degree of certainty how many policyholders are with in the proposed class or how many policyholders have each of the eleven types of policies identified.
Subject: RE: I agree with GED. Melanie please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 24, 2007, 11:29 am CST
Posted By: Melanie
Comment:
please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 16, 2007, 2:09 pm CST
Posted By: Ralph Balamabama
Comment:
The Stand Up Comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it was some kind of put down I would love to be able to chuckle about it but I just do not get it. Its pretty fun since I do not take myself to seriously. You must have been hugging the tree so long some of the sap hasSubject: RE: I agree with GED. Melanie please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 24, 2007, 11:29 am CST
Posted By: Melanie
Comment:
please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 16, 2007, 2:09 pm CST
Posted By: Ralph Balamabama
Comment:
The Stand Up Comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it was some kind of put down I would love to be able to chuckle about it but I just do not get it. Its pretty fun since I do not take myself to seriously. You must have been hugging the tree so long some of the sap has
Adjusterjoe — you wouldn\’t know the truth about anything even if it come right up to your face and smacked your coke-bottle think glasses right off your face.
800 number in the last posting. The number should be 800-737-8587. IMPORTANT—I accidentally put the wrong 800 number in the last posting. The number should be 800-737-8587. State Farm dose not stop. Call tell your story. I hope this can help someone.
Consider how easy it is to commit insurance fraud. Even insurance textbooks
admit that policies are unread and unreadable. According to Vaughan and Vaughan,
Fundamentals of Risk and Insurance (8th edition): \”In most cases, the customer
is asked to purchase a product in which he or she becomes a party to a contract
that he or she has not read nor would understand if it were read.\” That is
almost an open invitation to fraud. When selling the contract or when paying
claims under it, insurance personnel know that the buyer or claimant may be at
their mercy. Claims adjusters, anxious to make a record by denying claims, have
a field day. Insurance agents, anxious to earn commissions, can also join the
field day in puffing and misrepresenting policies.
Consider also the strength and weaknesses of the parties. On the one hand, you
have an insurance company, with armies of experts and boxcars full of money. On
the other hand, you have a claimant, who may not be well advised, who knows
little about insurance or the policy in question, and who can\’t afford legal
battles and long delays. But to an insurance company, a legal battle is just
another routine cost of doing business. It has lawyers in house and all over its
operating territory. If it denies a claim, it\’s can be in a win-win situation.
There\’s a good chance the claimant will give up and go away. Even if the
claimant protests and appeals to higher levels of management or goes to the
state insurance commissioner, the insurance company can then pay and has the
benefit of the claimant\’s money sitting in the bank in the meantime. Even if the
claimant hires a lawyer and sues, the insurer can then settle. Only in
exceptional cases (when an attorney takes the case, proves that the insurance
company acted in bad faith, and wins an award of punitive damages for the
claimant), improper decisions by the company can be profitable for the company.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
that little Dickie Scruggs could be on the outside looking in when the settlement is reached? Not much of an investment in the sisters who couldn\’t
protect confidential, proprietary information. Are the sisters being prosecuted, anyone?
Not sure about the sisters. Neither Dateline nor 20/20 have done a followup story on them.
It does sound like Dickie might be on the outside looking in on any settlement.
2. I am a former employee of State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (collectively,
\”State Farm\” or \”the Company\”). I was employed there from 1988
through mid-1996, and in fact separated during the pendency of
the Taylor litigation. Since August of 1994, I worked first in
the Automobile Company\’s so-called \”SAC\” unit (\”Suits Against the
Company\” unit) and then in the Fire Company\’s SAC unit. Later
these units were renamed, \”Litigation Units.\” My most recent job
title before separation from the Company was Claims Specialist.
My responsibilities included evaluating bad faith suits brought
against the Company by insureds, responding to discovery and
monitoring litigation. I did so in connection with the Taylor
litigation.
3. In this capacity, I am aware that there were many other State
Farm claims arising out of the Northridge earthquake like the
Taylors\’ involving unauthorized signatures by State Farm agents
or agency employees on applications omitting earthquake coverage.
At the time of the Taylor claim, the Company was well aware that
this was a problem. As a matter of practice, the Company would
pay these claims, if it believed that the forgery issue would be
brought to light and proven by the insured. Because of the
forgery issue in the Taylor case, if the case was not dismissed
on summary judgement, it was my impression that the claim was
going to be reconsidered. However, we were waiting to see if we
could save money on the Taylor claim by having summary judgement
granted, and as part of that plan I was instructed not to provide
certain relevant information at my depositions.
4. Specifically, my supervisor in the SAC unit, Vanessa Gudelj,
and her supervisor, John Poptanich, put pressure on me to
withhold the existence of documents memorializing certain State
Farm claims handling guidelines from plaintiffs\’ counsel Bernie
Bernheim at my deposition, which they believed, if revealed,
would defeat summary judgement and ultimately lead to payment of
the Taylors\’ claim. They pressured me into not revealing the
existence of claims handling documents which established
guidelines under which claims like the Taylors were to be
handled. These included a three ring binder called \”CATHR
Management Information and Memos Manual\” used and maintained by
Claim Superintendent Tinga Nicholson who was the Claim
Superintendent that denied the Taylors\’ claim. It was responsive
to the Taylors\’ discovery request and we simply chose not to
produce it. Similarly, Ms. Nicholson had prepared a breakdown
of earthquake claims in her unit (the SHU unit – see below) by
category of claim, and one of the categories was \”unauthorized
signatures.\” This document showed the percentage of total
earthquake claims which involved unauthorized signatures. This
document, too, was never produced.
5. The Taylors\’ claim was denied by personnel working in the
so-called \”Special Handling Unit.\” In addition to the claims
handling documents mentioned above, we never produced to Mr.
Bernheim a document memorializing a SHU meeting at which the
subject of unauthorized signatures on applications omitting
earthquake insurance was discussed. This document has a heading
as follows:
\”Problem areas
– Telephone apps [applications] – EQ [earthquake] has to be in
person.
Und. [Underwriting] was supposed to catch \’not signed\’
– in some cases the agent or staff signed it.\”
6. In the SAC unit, we knew that Rod Taylor\’s signature on the
application was clearly not his signature.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
19th day of September, 1996 at Ojai, California.
——————————————————————————–
Everybody know,s The plaintiffs have alleged that\” Many hundreds , if not thousands, of individuals and / or entities have asserted Claims or have potential claims \” Against State Farm. Neither the plaintiffs nor State Farm has given the court any information from which the Court can determine with any reasonable degree of certainty how many policyholders are with in the proposed class or how many policyholders have each of the eleven types of policies identified.
Subject: RE: I agree with GED. Melanie please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 24, 2007, 11:29 am CST
Posted By: Melanie
Comment:
please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 16, 2007, 2:09 pm CST
Posted By: Ralph Balamabama
Comment:
The Stand Up Comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it was some kind of put down I would love to be able to chuckle about it but I just do not get it. Its pretty fun since I do not take myself to seriously. You must have been hugging the tree so long some of the sap hasSubject: RE: I agree with GED. Melanie please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 24, 2007, 11:29 am CST
Posted By: Melanie
Comment:
please try to be coherent.
Posted On: February 16, 2007, 2:09 pm CST
Posted By: Ralph Balamabama
Comment:
The Stand Up Comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it was some kind of put down I would love to be able to chuckle about it but I just do not get it. Its pretty fun since I do not take myself to seriously. You must have been hugging the tree so long some of the sap has
good post. The truth is not accepted well here, so be ready.
Adjusterjoe — you wouldn\’t know the truth about anything even if it come right up to your face and smacked your coke-bottle think glasses right off your face.
800 number in the last posting. The number should be 800-737-8587. IMPORTANT—I accidentally put the wrong 800 number in the last posting. The number should be 800-737-8587. State Farm dose not stop. Call tell your story. I hope this can help someone.
Consider how easy it is to commit insurance fraud. Even insurance textbooks
admit that policies are unread and unreadable. According to Vaughan and Vaughan,
Fundamentals of Risk and Insurance (8th edition): \”In most cases, the customer
is asked to purchase a product in which he or she becomes a party to a contract
that he or she has not read nor would understand if it were read.\” That is
almost an open invitation to fraud. When selling the contract or when paying
claims under it, insurance personnel know that the buyer or claimant may be at
their mercy. Claims adjusters, anxious to make a record by denying claims, have
a field day. Insurance agents, anxious to earn commissions, can also join the
field day in puffing and misrepresenting policies.
Consider also the strength and weaknesses of the parties. On the one hand, you
have an insurance company, with armies of experts and boxcars full of money. On
the other hand, you have a claimant, who may not be well advised, who knows
little about insurance or the policy in question, and who can\’t afford legal
battles and long delays. But to an insurance company, a legal battle is just
another routine cost of doing business. It has lawyers in house and all over its
operating territory. If it denies a claim, it\’s can be in a win-win situation.
There\’s a good chance the claimant will give up and go away. Even if the
claimant protests and appeals to higher levels of management or goes to the
state insurance commissioner, the insurance company can then pay and has the
benefit of the claimant\’s money sitting in the bank in the meantime. Even if the
claimant hires a lawyer and sues, the insurer can then settle. Only in
exceptional cases (when an attorney takes the case, proves that the insurance
company acted in bad faith, and wins an award of punitive damages for the
claimant), improper decisions by the company can be profitable for the company.