Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In early 2009, the State Farm Florida subsidiary, the state's largest insurer, offered to withdraw from writing property insurance business in Florida after state regulators refused to approve a 47% property rate increase. State Farm said that, in Florida, it had paid out US$1.21 in claims for every dollar in premiums since 2000.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell; State Farm Research and Development Center; ... File:ESPN College GameDay (Basketball) Logo.png; S. File:State ...
George Jacob "G.J." Mecherle [1] (pronounced "Ma-herl") (June 7, 1877 - March 10, 1951) was the founder of State Farm, headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois.Mecherle, a farmer who later became an insurance agent, founded State Farm after becoming dissatisfied with the insurance rates charged to farmers, as those rates included the risks of city drivers as well.
State Farm ranks as sixth out of 19 insurance companies in the study, with a score of 892/1,000. As for its rating for home insurance, State Farm ranks fourth in J.D. Power's homeowners insurance ...
State Farm announced it would end coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments in the state earlier this year. ... A State Farm Insurance sign on a destroyed building during the Eaton Fire in Altadena ...
Michael L. Tipsord (born June 20, 1959) is the chairman of the board of State Farm Insurance in Bloomington, Illinois. Tipsord replaced Edward B. Rust Jr. as chairman on September 1, 2015. [1] State Farm is the 42nd largest company in the United States on the Fortune 500 [2] and the country’s largest auto and home insurer. [3] [4]
State Farm's historian claims that "90% of Mecherle's original material is still in the office." [ 7 ] Inside the office are sales receipts dating to 1936 and guest book entries from 1945. Though the office is not open to the public, the company uses it to impart knowledge of the company's past to new employees.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".