ATTENTION: The glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.
You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
Glasslady, it was about how the insurance claims were handled in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. It made me cry, poor people lost everything and State Farm wouldn't pay on there claims... Two adjusters reported State Farm so maybe they'll have to come clean.
Missed the show, had to work late, but the vid is up on the 20 20 site at http://abcnews.go.com/2020/
While I'm sad to say I'm not that shocked, after reading all that's led up to this going on in Louisana, Mississippi, and Texas, I am glad of one informational tidbit: That Prop and Cas insurers cleared $45 Billion, a second record setting year in a row, despite Katrina and Rita.
What the press is seldom mentioning, is that insurers also put away another $40 billion or so into additional reserves, and they don't have to report that as profits, so the actual figure to this record setting year was much higher than just $45B.
Wouldn't it be nice if whatever we managed to tuck away into our savings accounts for silly little things like retirement or college for our kids didn't have to be reported to the IRS as income?
i didn't see the show, but i was under the impression that alot of the people affected by katrina didn't have flood coverage, so in part not all the blame rests on state farm. not defending them but i can't imagine living below sea level and not having flood insurance.
I don't think it's State Farm's policy to do such things, as the guys backglass or the horrible way people are being treated in New Orleans and other affected areas of the Gulf Coast. I believe it has more to do with the individual agents. Just like any other "franchise" you have good ones and bad ones. Some people go into insurance to get rich, some just want to make a good living, put their kids thru college and actually provide a service. We have one State Farm here in our small town, it's owned by a woman and she is of unquestionable character, she would do anything to help out a policyholder, I know of one case where she paid an insureds premiums for 3 months while he was out of work. I hate that the bad ones are making them all look like crooks...they aren't.
You're right, I know many agents that are just great people, and are complaining loudly about what is taking place in the 'network' system, but the mother companies aren't listening.
I know of two agents that bucked the system so hard, they were finally threatened with their agencies if they didn't cow-tow and play ball by the rules.
This fiasco televised isn't about the agents this time, it's about the company diverting legitimate claims they should have paid into the flood insurance program, or out of their own coverage responsibilities simply for the reason to not to have to pay out.
Any way you look at that, no matter how much SF has paid out in the state, that's just plain wrong.
Now, whether they did it or not, we'll see, but watching the show a second time, I noted something really strange: The guy named Drinkwater was a State Farm Attorney, yet he sounded more like a reporter for ABC.
IMHO the Farm is moving quickly into major damage control mode over this, admitting possible mistakes, launching their own internal investigation, ect ect, but NOT outright denying that they did anything wrong. Makes you wonder what's in those 17000 documents that the feds have, if you ask me. In any case, it's a major PR nightmare for the Farm, and it's been picked up by every major, and minor, news service nationwide and worldwide via the internet.
Time will tell, but an amusing footnote to the question/comment in the video of whether this would bankrupt the Farm if they had to pay out another Billion: $1B is just a drop in the bucket baby. From the reserves posted they have, I would say this would be an irritant to them, but would not threaten them financially what-so-ever.
The courts and the insurance contracts will decide what was covered by the policy, the feds and state regulators will now decide if there was intent to defraud by manipulation of the facts/engineering reports if the coverage did in fact exist.
It does make a person wonder, especially after the $3M award recently over the Oklahoma tornado victim that something very similar to this happened.