Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WaveThatFlag; Chancellor Palpatine
re: Although State Farm eventually paid the entire amount, Campbell and his wife, Inez, sued, saying the insurer unnecessarily forced them to face the possible loss of their property. )))

You mean Campbell disables someone, has to endure a trial for his tort, then decides to take his anguish out of the insurers' hide? This is what was in dispute, that Campbell had to ***worry***?

88 posted on 04/07/2003 2:45:46 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mamzelle
I thought that was a little odd. I assume that it had to do with some ridiculous coverage defense that will arise from time to time (that came up just because of the quota and not on a factual basis).
89 posted on 04/07/2003 2:50:04 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (going into an election campaign without the paleocons is like going to war without the French)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: Mamzelle; Chancellor Palpatine
So Campbell does the disabling to some third party, but Campbell and his lawyer get to walk away with millions because he WORRIED...poor worried Campbell...but the disabled person only gets the original $136K.

Now, there's the miscarriage. But the lawyers here only want to natter about procedures...

90 posted on 04/07/2003 2:50:18 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: Mamzelle
You would need to be a State Farm claimant to understand. State Farm adjusters invariably lie, low ball, delay, get the claimant between a rock and hard place and generally use every trick in the book to swindle unsophisticated claimants on the theory that while an occasional one will sue and collect big that most will just say "well I got screwed again by an insurance company" and go on down the road. This is thier corporate philosophy and their claim adjusters brag over coffee over how badly they screwed people. Read State Farms defenses again closely.

I have 20+ years insurance industry experience and am ashamed that such a company has been allowed to exist and prosper under the usual system of state regulation(State Farm is normally a big contributor to the state Commissioner). Don't read this as advocacy for Federal supervision, just more effective state regulation. I suppose I am naive to think that when a company's claim practices are grossly deceitful that the commissioner should step in to clean them up or issue a cease and desist regardless of how much they contributed to his campaign.

I am happy with the verdict but I wish there had been a different defendant. Fortunately, the State Farm claim people will one day all be burning in the hottest part of hell for the anquish they have caused.
98 posted on 04/07/2003 3:58:44 PM PDT by nomorecameljocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson