Leading bad faith case from 1978 involves FARMERS
PAGE EDITOR'S NOTE-
In Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, from 1978, we see that, as far back as 1978, one of the group of Farmers Insurance companies, was determined to have been "lowballing" settlements, and not just that, and this is the important point, that
In the leading California bad faith case of Neal v. Farmer's Insurance Exchange, 148 Cal Rptr. 389, 582 P. 2d 980 (1978), the court summarized the evidence against an insurer that had "lowballed" its insured's claim:
"[The] evidence, in brief, indicated that Farmer's refusal to accept (Mrs. Neal's attorney's) offer of settlement, and its subsequent submission of the matter to its attorney for opinion, were all part of a conscious course of conduct, firmly grounded in established company policy, designed to utilize the lamentable circumstances in which Mrs. Neal and her family found themselves, and the exigent financial situation resulting from it, as a lever to force a settlement more favorable to the company than the facts would otherwise have warranted.
In order to prove that the insurer was attempting to exploit the insured's vulnerable position, the Neal court held that the insured may introduce evidence of what the insurer knew about the insured's financial situation:
Thus, in determining whether Farmer's, in breaching its duty to the insured to make a reasonable settlement, did so in a spirit of oppression, the jury was clearly entitled to consider the evidence of the situation of the insured at the time of the proffered settlement insofar as it might be considered to have motivated its actions."
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/128466.html
In Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, from 1978, we see that, as far back as 1978, one of the group of Farmers Insurance companies, was determined to have been "lowballing" settlements, and not just that, and this is the important point, that
In the leading California bad faith case of Neal v. Farmer's Insurance Exchange, 148 Cal Rptr. 389, 582 P. 2d 980 (1978), the court summarized the evidence against an insurer that had "lowballed" its insured's claim:
"[The] evidence, in brief, indicated that Farmer's refusal to accept (Mrs. Neal's attorney's) offer of settlement, and its subsequent submission of the matter to its attorney for opinion, were all part of a conscious course of conduct, firmly grounded in established company policy, designed to utilize the lamentable circumstances in which Mrs. Neal and her family found themselves, and the exigent financial situation resulting from it, as a lever to force a settlement more favorable to the company than the facts would otherwise have warranted.
In order to prove that the insurer was attempting to exploit the insured's vulnerable position, the Neal court held that the insured may introduce evidence of what the insurer knew about the insured's financial situation:
Thus, in determining whether Farmer's, in breaching its duty to the insured to make a reasonable settlement, did so in a spirit of oppression, the jury was clearly entitled to consider the evidence of the situation of the insured at the time of the proffered settlement insofar as it might be considered to have motivated its actions."
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/128466.html
posted by chiropractic at 4:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home