Judge Vows He’s Still Open to Mass Settlement of State Farm Katrina Claims in Miss.

April 18, 2007

  • April 19, 2007 at 4:20 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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?

  • April 20, 2007 at 5:35 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • April 22, 2007 at 11:08 am
    Read - Jackson- Harrison and says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

    ——————————————————————————–

  • April 22, 2007 at 1:23 am
    Melanie / History. GED says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • April 22, 2007 at 3:21 am
    YOUR HISTORY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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

  • April 23, 2007 at 10:47 am
    adjusterjoe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    good post. The truth is not accepted well here, so be ready.

  • April 24, 2007 at 5:34 am
    Miss Diasy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • April 28, 2007 at 9:47 am
    Call says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • May 1, 2007 at 3:37 am
    Melanie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

*