Of course not, there is no difference. They gave testimony to a grand jury and you know that automatically means they are guilty. (i.e. Duke lacrosse players, Barry Bonds, etc.) Besides, unemployedjoe has many top seceret sources for his info, which he cannot reveal without jeopardizing his witness relocation status.
You take various items, some factual, some not, and weave them into a tapestry of lies and misrepresentation.
When asked to substantiate your claims with facts you disappear, only to show up later with more innuendo and even larger conspiracy theories.
I\’m not sure what your vendetta is against State Farm, but they are not the only firm to settle a court case, nor are their executives the only people asked to testify to a grand jury.
As has already been pointed out, testifying doesn\’t mean you are guilty, nor does paying damages mean you are guilty.
Your attempts to attack a company grow ever more pathetic, and your inability to prove your claims grows ever more apparent.
For the record, I do not work for State farm, I have never worked for State Farm, and I don\’t anticipate working for State Farm. Also, I do not represent State Farm or it\’s subsidiaries. I do consider State Farm a competitor, but only insofar as they offer a product similar to those that I offer. It\’s more expensive and doesn\’t coverae as much, but I suppose it competes in some fashion.
I\’m putting my oar in the water because reading your frantic efforts to justify your hateful little position grows more painful every time I access this thread.
You continue to live in your own red world where State Farm can do no wrong. These FACTS have NEVER been addressed by the apologists.
1. State Farm loses case in OKLA and punitive awards is given due to irregularities with engineering reports. No wind or water question involved.
2. State Farm loses all csses to date in Misissippi from Katrina. State Farm again has problems with engineering reports and punitive damages awarded.
3. Following 1 & 2 above, State Farm decides to settle cases originally denied that other carriers paid up front.
State Farm lost and you are still here whining they did no wrong. We have a judicial system in our ocuntry and State Farm availed themselves to it and lost. It is over and they lost. Not only lost but were penalized for bad claims handling practices. Now what part of lost do you not understand?
They haven\’t lost all the cases to date. Some have been dismissed, and Trent Lott\’s was settled.
We don\’t know what the terms were, so it\’s just as likely that Lott agreed to drop it as SF agreed to pay.
SF\’s mistakes do not excuse your libel and inability to provide facts to support your position.
I just refuted your claim that they lost all the Katrina cases.
Once again, you make a statement without supporting evidence- a statement directly contradictory to things reported on the same website you are posting on.
You hate State Farm for some reason, and because of that you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is an apologist.
You are unable to see the flaws in your own reasoning, and you dismiss contradictory points and evidence as lies and apologizing.
You are also unable to recognize voices of moderation showing you a middle-ground explanation that justify\’s both the position you have taken and positions that are the polar opposite of yours.
I, by the way, do not have a position classified as opposite yours, but you don\’t recognize that since I\’ve failed to kneel before your omniscience and accept your interpretation as gospel writ.
I\’ve said it before, and I\’ll say it again- you\’re pathetic.
Your position may be valid, but that fact is lost in the street-corner p[rophet method of it\’s delivery.
just took you to the woodshed!!! He speaks for everyone on this board that is tired of your ridiculous rantings. See, he used concepts foreign to you…reason and fact. Now go continue in your job search.
So you\’ve been saying that Ed Rust was brought up on criminal charges because of a coincidence?! I agree with the others on this board: You are truly pathetic!
Yes, I\’m an agent for State Farm, & I don\’t agree with the way they\’ve handled all of their claims, but to make such outlandish statements about the company and anyone associated with it, or anyone who does not agree with your warped point of view, is sad.
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.
You must be Jewel\’s relative. If they did not go to court they have not been adjudicated. Cases are only won and lost in court. Otherwise they are compromised with both parties agreeing. The reason cases are now being compromised where Stste Farm previously took a hard line is due to he fact that THEY HAVE LOST ALL CASES. And moreover, had punitive damages awarded for their claims practices. You have refuted nothing, only offered your worthless opinion. Back it up with facts. Show us a case State Farm has won.
You should take a basic reading course. It is the State Farm apologists who suggest that the settling of claims and the dismissal of the grand jury is coincidence.
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.
Of course not, there is no difference. They gave testimony to a grand jury and you know that automatically means they are guilty. (i.e. Duke lacrosse players, Barry Bonds, etc.) Besides, unemployedjoe has many top seceret sources for his info, which he cannot reveal without jeopardizing his witness relocation status.
So it was coincidence that the grand jury was released at the same time State Farm agreed to pay the slab cases? You are a joke!
You take various items, some factual, some not, and weave them into a tapestry of lies and misrepresentation.
When asked to substantiate your claims with facts you disappear, only to show up later with more innuendo and even larger conspiracy theories.
I\’m not sure what your vendetta is against State Farm, but they are not the only firm to settle a court case, nor are their executives the only people asked to testify to a grand jury.
As has already been pointed out, testifying doesn\’t mean you are guilty, nor does paying damages mean you are guilty.
Your attempts to attack a company grow ever more pathetic, and your inability to prove your claims grows ever more apparent.
For the record, I do not work for State farm, I have never worked for State Farm, and I don\’t anticipate working for State Farm. Also, I do not represent State Farm or it\’s subsidiaries. I do consider State Farm a competitor, but only insofar as they offer a product similar to those that I offer. It\’s more expensive and doesn\’t coverae as much, but I suppose it competes in some fashion.
I\’m putting my oar in the water because reading your frantic efforts to justify your hateful little position grows more painful every time I access this thread.
You continue to live in your own red world where State Farm can do no wrong. These FACTS have NEVER been addressed by the apologists.
1. State Farm loses case in OKLA and punitive awards is given due to irregularities with engineering reports. No wind or water question involved.
2. State Farm loses all csses to date in Misissippi from Katrina. State Farm again has problems with engineering reports and punitive damages awarded.
3. Following 1 & 2 above, State Farm decides to settle cases originally denied that other carriers paid up front.
State Farm lost and you are still here whining they did no wrong. We have a judicial system in our ocuntry and State Farm availed themselves to it and lost. It is over and they lost. Not only lost but were penalized for bad claims handling practices. Now what part of lost do you not understand?
They haven\’t lost all the cases to date. Some have been dismissed, and Trent Lott\’s was settled.
We don\’t know what the terms were, so it\’s just as likely that Lott agreed to drop it as SF agreed to pay.
SF\’s mistakes do not excuse your libel and inability to provide facts to support your position.
I just refuted your claim that they lost all the Katrina cases.
Once again, you make a statement without supporting evidence- a statement directly contradictory to things reported on the same website you are posting on.
You hate State Farm for some reason, and because of that you believe that anybody who disagrees with you is an apologist.
You are unable to see the flaws in your own reasoning, and you dismiss contradictory points and evidence as lies and apologizing.
You are also unable to recognize voices of moderation showing you a middle-ground explanation that justify\’s both the position you have taken and positions that are the polar opposite of yours.
I, by the way, do not have a position classified as opposite yours, but you don\’t recognize that since I\’ve failed to kneel before your omniscience and accept your interpretation as gospel writ.
I\’ve said it before, and I\’ll say it again- you\’re pathetic.
Your position may be valid, but that fact is lost in the street-corner p[rophet method of it\’s delivery.
just took you to the woodshed!!! He speaks for everyone on this board that is tired of your ridiculous rantings. See, he used concepts foreign to you…reason and fact. Now go continue in your job search.
So you\’ve been saying that Ed Rust was brought up on criminal charges because of a coincidence?! I agree with the others on this board: You are truly pathetic!
Yes, I\’m an agent for State Farm, & I don\’t agree with the way they\’ve handled all of their claims, but to make such outlandish statements about the company and anyone associated with it, or anyone who does not agree with your warped point of view, is sad.
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.
You must be Jewel\’s relative. If they did not go to court they have not been adjudicated. Cases are only won and lost in court. Otherwise they are compromised with both parties agreeing. The reason cases are now being compromised where Stste Farm previously took a hard line is due to he fact that THEY HAVE LOST ALL CASES. And moreover, had punitive damages awarded for their claims practices. You have refuted nothing, only offered your worthless opinion. Back it up with facts. Show us a case State Farm has won.
You should take a basic reading course. It is the State Farm apologists who suggest that the settling of claims and the dismissal of the grand jury is coincidence.