Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, in Washington after testifying yesterday before the Senate Commerce Committee, said he knew about the e-mails for months as part of his criminal grand-jury investigation.
“It is a document that clearly shows State Farm used engineers and coerced engineers to write a report like they wanted,” Hood said.
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who
lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has
testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided
the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding
records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction
of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of
internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated
certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document
handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of
intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices
records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony
Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top
State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general
counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for
his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings
where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I
choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual
company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or
decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client
privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from
policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the
area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly
traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have
access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State
Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
Subject Posted By Posted On
the bad boys Melanie May 12, 2007, 8:16 pm
RE: RE: Ratings For
The complex relationship between the parties to this case spans a number of years. Spratley began his relationship with State Farm in 1987, working as State Farm’s sole in-house lawyer in Salt Lake City before transferring temporarily to State Farm’s headquarters in Illinois. Beginning in the early 1990s, Spratley and Pearce worked together as Claims Litigation Counsel (CLC) for State Farm in the Salt Lake City CLC office. In this capacity Spratley and Pearce represented both State Farm and its insureds. During that representation, Spratley and Pearce allege that State Farm required them to violate many of their ethical duties as attorneys and punished them when they did not. Concluding that they could not meet their ethical duties as attorneys and comply with allegedly unlawful and unethical demands placed on them by State Farm, Spratley and Pearce resigned their employment with State Farm in June 2000. Upon their departure, Spratley and Pearce retained copies of many allegedly confidential documents and materials, some of which State Farm contends were improperly appended to the complaint.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
?3 Spratley and Pearce ultimately sued State Farm for (1) misrepresentation and nondisclosure; (2) tortious interference with business relations; (3) retaliation and termination in violation of public policy; (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of the employment contract; (6) wrongful discharge and employment termination; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court’s later dismissal of the second and sixth causes of action is not challenged on appeal. As noted above, the complaint contained appendices, some of which State Farm argues were confidential documents. Pursuant to a separate trial court order, affidavits subsequently submitted by Spratley and Pearce were filed under seal, as were the briefs to this court.
get a clue. This article is not about State Farm, Katrina, wind vs. water. It is a about the state’s investigation of a fraudulent slip & fall claim! This is not your personal forum again State Farm.
They allege they left because State Farm was forcing them to violate their ethical duties and then they violate their ethical duties voluntarily when they leave taking confidential documents with them?
They allege they left because State Farm was forcing them to violate their ethical duties and then they violate their ethical duties voluntarily when they leave taking confidential documents with them?
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.
How will you do your job if it is oneside- Maybe you will wake up and stop State Farm. WE all want to see. Mr Hood.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, in Washington after testifying yesterday before the Senate Commerce Committee, said he knew about the e-mails for months as part of his criminal grand-jury investigation.
“It is a document that clearly shows State Farm used engineers and coerced engineers to write a report like they wanted,” Hood said.
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who
lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has
testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided
the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding
records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction
of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of
internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated
certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document
handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of
intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices
records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony
Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top
State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general
counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for
his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings
where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I
choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual
company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or
decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client
privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from
policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the
area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly
traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have
access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State
Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
Subject Posted By Posted On
the bad boys Melanie May 12, 2007, 8:16 pm
RE: RE: Ratings For
The complex relationship between the parties to this case spans a number of years. Spratley began his relationship with State Farm in 1987, working as State Farm’s sole in-house lawyer in Salt Lake City before transferring temporarily to State Farm’s headquarters in Illinois. Beginning in the early 1990s, Spratley and Pearce worked together as Claims Litigation Counsel (CLC) for State Farm in the Salt Lake City CLC office. In this capacity Spratley and Pearce represented both State Farm and its insureds. During that representation, Spratley and Pearce allege that State Farm required them to violate many of their ethical duties as attorneys and punished them when they did not. Concluding that they could not meet their ethical duties as attorneys and comply with allegedly unlawful and unethical demands placed on them by State Farm, Spratley and Pearce resigned their employment with State Farm in June 2000. Upon their departure, Spratley and Pearce retained copies of many allegedly confidential documents and materials, some of which State Farm contends were improperly appended to the complaint.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
?3 Spratley and Pearce ultimately sued State Farm for (1) misrepresentation and nondisclosure; (2) tortious interference with business relations; (3) retaliation and termination in violation of public policy; (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of the employment contract; (6) wrongful discharge and employment termination; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court’s later dismissal of the second and sixth causes of action is not challenged on appeal. As noted above, the complaint contained appendices, some of which State Farm argues were confidential documents. Pursuant to a separate trial court order, affidavits subsequently submitted by Spratley and Pearce were filed under seal, as were the briefs to this court.
?4 At all
get a clue. This article is not about State Farm, Katrina, wind vs. water. It is a about the state’s investigation of a fraudulent slip & fall claim! This is not your personal forum again State Farm.
They allege they left because State Farm was forcing them to violate their ethical duties and then they violate their ethical duties voluntarily when they leave taking confidential documents with them?
They allege they left because State Farm was forcing them to violate their ethical duties and then they violate their ethical duties voluntarily when they leave taking confidential documents with them?