Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
State Farm has lodged a case in the U.S. Supreme Court, 'State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, to be heard in the term which commences in October 2016. State Farm is arguing that the attorneys for the Rigsbys violated a part of the False Claims Act, that is they released documents which were under the 60 day seal rule.
The lead plaintiff, Joan St. Julian, claims that State Farm violated the law by failing to pay sales tax to drivers when reimbursing them for the "actual cash value" of their cars that were deemed total losses. [70] According to the lawsuit, State Farm systematically underpaid claims made by thousands of consumers who experienced total vehicle ...
We are prepared to do that," said Sevag Sarkissian, a spokesperson for the State Farm insurance group. State Farm General bought a total of $2.2 billion worth of homeowners reinsurance from ...
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company. [3] Prior to 2005, State Farm offered two types [fn 1] of insurance policies to homeowners: flood insurance, which would be reimbursed by the federal government's National Flood Insurance Program, and general homeowner insurance, which would be paid directly by State Farm. [3]
And so they’ve launched two class-action suits, one in Florida and the other in Georgia, claiming State Farm uniformly rejects repair estimates that exceed $4,700 per claim — when the market ...
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), commonly known in U.S. administrative law as State Farm, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning regulations requiring passive restraints in cars.
Get answers to your AOL Mail, login, Desktop Gold, AOL app, password and subscription questions. Find the support options to contact customer care by email, chat, or phone number.
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".