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!
Joe may be right, but I'm guessing that Am Fam will realize that eating the verdict to keep the press about the 'flying pink pig' from getting any bigger is the smart move. Remember the stunt Farmers (as I recall) pulled against the nice lady that ended up living in her car in WA because somebody deliberately running into her didn't fall under the definition of 'accident' in the policy? They paid big in that fiasco, in terms of dollars and bad PR.
The Farm was fighting a billion verdict, and now the Judge they bought is dealing wiht the backlash, and if the articles are true, the Farm might have spent as much as this verdict buying that judge.
There's not enough money here to risk the increase in bad press and the flying pink pig is already in the court records.
On the other hand, the records have Bill Hardt saying "How do we convince consumers these parts are the same, when we know they're not?" also.
Now, the Farm has the shops who sign accepting the liability for the parts, and for informing the consumers that they shop used them.
In fairness to the Farm, this was in Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch. "The law firm that represented the plaintiffs against State Farm, Clifford Law Offices of Chicago, donated $10,000 to Justice Charles Freeman in 2000. Freeman voted against State Farm in last year's decision." (that decision was reversed by Justice Karmeier who did receive campaign contributions from lawyers and employees of State Farm.) Works both ways for judges in Illinois (where dead people still vote).