Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In 1993, Todd Hindin filed a lawsuit against State Farm for allegedly keeping a list of prominent lawyers referred to within State Farm as the "Jewish Lawyers List". Any claims made by clients of these attorneys were automatically forwarded to State Farm's fraud unit, potentially on the basis of the religion and national origin of the lawyers.
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.
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]
When she showed up at the bank and began to cry, a bank employee helped her connect with the fraud department, which was trying to dispute the transactions. However, she had 10 days to wait before ...
Whether your bank refunds money lost in a scam depends on several factors: the type of scam, how you sent the funds, the bank’s policies and if you authorized the transaction. Learn more in our ...
Argued April 26, 1983 Decided June 24, 1983; Full case name: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc., et al. v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company et al; Consumer Alert, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al.; United States Department of Transportation, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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".