Sep 28, 2010
Sep 27, 2010
Couple sues insurer over fixes after fire - NashuaTelegraph.com
A State Farm spokesman declined to comment for this story citing the pending litigation.
“The Gagnons have expended over $14,000 for their engineering examination of the property and report, which was unnecessary if State Farm had performed their obligation in a reasonable and lawful manner,” the Gagnons’ attorney, William Aivalikles of Nashua, wrote in the writ of summons filed Sept. 1"
Sep 26, 2010
State Farm Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 2007 investigation by CNN reported that major car insurance companies, including State Farm and Allstate Insurance, are increasingly fighting claims from those injured by their insured members. In some cases the settlement proposed amounts to just $50 or the threat that any lawsuit would be made so expensive and time-consuming that it wouldn't be worth the victim's time. State Farm and Allstate have denied these allegations.[11] This followed on the heels of criminal investigations by the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, which found that State Farm had wrongly denied claims stemming from Hurricane Katrina.[12] In 2009, and continuing into 2010, the 'StateFarmSucks' Campaign [13] attracted National attention, after a Widow, Angela Russell, publicized the story of State Farm's 'Bad Faith' handling of her claim. The issue is currently in litigation."
Sep 25, 2010
Ceo's and business | Twitter Tweets about Ceo as of September 25, 2010
Sep 24, 2010
Sep 23, 2010
Sep 22, 2010
Sep 21, 2010
Sep 20, 2010
Sep 19, 2010
Insurance Companies Exempt from Nation's Anti Trust Laws
(click link for complete article)
| Insurance Companies Exempt from Nation's Anti Trust Laws |
| ShareThis From price-gouging to collusion, the insurance industry can operate in a manner that no other financial service sector can. No bank, no investment house, no financial broker. The fact of the matter is that the total number of federal regulations that apply to the insurance industry isO. The insurance industry is only one of two industry's that the nation's laws exempt from our federal anti-trust legislation. The other sector is professional baseball. While baseball is an American favorite past time, the sport does not play a role in securing a bank loan to purchase a home or business nor whether our financial and real assets are protected in the event of fire, theft, earthquake, blizzard, tornado, hurricane, mudslide, or other event. Coastal America's Homeowner Insurance Crisis |
Evidence of Insurance Companies Defrauding the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
(click link for complete article)
| Evidence of Insurance Companies Defrauding the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) |
| ShareThis [Click here to read the 24 documents that document Evidence of Fraud by Insurers Handling Katrina Losses With Both Wind and Flood Damage.] After a major hurricane such as Katrina, there are hundreds of thousands of properties where it is not possible to clearly distinguish the wind damage from the flood damage. The wind/water controversy comes down to a classic question of who pays. Private insurance companies collect premiums to cover wind damage to property. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), an American taxpayer subsidized progam, covers flood. Every legal precedent in every state and federal court places the burden on insurers to prove that property damage is excluded before insurers can deny coverage to its policyholders.Under the prior administration, however, the NFIP maintained weak oversight. Insurers took advantage of that fact and shifted the burden of proof away from themselves and onto the shoulders of America's home and business owners. As a result, insurance companies blamed all of the hurricane's wind and water damage on the flooding alone. Then they denied the wind-damage claims of their own policyholders unless homeowners could prove that their property damage was caused by wind alone. Private insurance companies billed the federal taxpayers--via the NFIP-- for all damage where flooding was at all possible while paying wind claims only where wind was the only possible cause. In every case, the benefit of the doubt favored the insurance company at the expense of taxpayers and homeowners, while NFIP did nothing to protect either.
|