State Farm Agrees to $31 Million Settlement |
 |
State Farm agreed to a $31M settlement for class-action billing dispute Insurer hopes to end dispute over whether it should have told policyholders about UIM rules.
After more than 10 years of legal wrangling, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. has agreed to settle an Ohio class-action lawsuit for $31 million.
The lawsuit, brought against the Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer in 1995, alleged that despite an October 1994 state law that did away with the need for separate uninsured motorist policies for every vehicle in a household, the company continued to charge separate premiums without notifying policyholders it was no longer a requirement.
At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and
settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and
other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.
Other Insurance Cases of Interest
A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Florida, alleges that cell phone insurance is being promoted in a “deceptive and outrageous” manner by cell phone equipment insurers. The lawsuit alleges replacement telephones are often cheap, used, or refurbished models which further decrease the value of the insurance and monthly premiums are misleading since they don't really insure the phone in the event of a loss. The theory of diminished value asserts that buyers choosing between two otherwise equal vehicles will select one that has not been previously damaged and repaired, even where the repairs to the other vehicle were first-rate. On July 10, 2003, the court gave final approval to a settlement, apparently valued at $825,000, in a class action on behalf all persons insured by an automobile insurance policy issued in Georgia by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, American Protection Insurance Company, or Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company and who made a claim for damage to their vehicles under their collision, comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage over a specified time period. Though there is no claims deadline at this time, persons who are eligible to take part in the settlement who have not received a notification letter should act as soon as possible to alert the company of their eligibility. Holders of certain annuities may be entitled to compensation based upon information and belief that New York Life Insurance and Annuities Company may not have paid the holders of the annuities all amounts due them as agreed under the annuity contracts. The theory of diminished value asserts that buyers choosing between two otherwise equal vehicles will select one that has not been previously damaged and repaired, even where the repairs to the other vehicle were first-rate. The parties have reached a tentative $2,346,535 settlement in an action filed against SAFECO Insurance Company of America and numerous affiliated companies on behalf all persons insured by an automobile insurance policy issued in Georgia by the defendants and who made a claim for damage to their vehicles under their collision, comprehensive, underinsured, or uninsured motorist coverage for a loss that occurred between June 19, 1997, and November 28, 2001. Though there is no claims deadline at this time, persons who are eligible to take part in the settlement who have not received a notification letter should act as soon as possible to alert the company of their eligibility. The parties have reached a tentative $3.25 million settlement in several actions filed against John Alden Financial Corporation and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 20, 1994, and May 3, 1995. Persons eligible to participate in the settlement must file a proof of claim postmarked no later than May 16, 2004. Women's rights advocates have been pressing ahead in the battle to provide women with parity in the healthcare field. A class action has been filed against Washington state healthcare insurance provider Regence Blue Shield on behalf of female policyholders who allege that they have been denied coverage for FDA-approved forms of contraception, in violation of state insurance and consumer protection laws.
|