State Farm Wins in the SCOTUS?

[Actuary321]

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04082003/utah/45992.asp

...
While the U.S. justices acknowledged State Farm's handling of the claims against the Campbells "merits no praise," they said a more modest award would have been punishment enough.
...
"A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business," said Monday's opinion. "This case, instead, was used as a platform to expose, and punish, the perceived deficiencies of State Farm's operations throughout the county."
...
"Companies could mathematically calculate the risk of punitive damages . . . and would feel free to commit intentional misconduct whenever the risk of punishment seemed low enough," he said. And what better company to do that than an insurance company.


And in a related case.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480034335,00.html

Can hired lawyers use work product to prove they were forced out for refusing to act illegally and unethicly?

[NoName]

State Farm wins another case, this time in the Supreme Court of California:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S108308.PDF

In this case a homeowners' policy covered "collapse" of all or part of a building. "Collapse means actually fallen down or fallen into pieces. It does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, or bowing."

The homeowner filed a claim for the repair of decks alleged to have been in a state of imminent collapse. Denied. The lower courts ruled that notwithstanding the clear policy provision, public policy required that imminent as well as actual collapse be covered. The supreme court disagreed, noting, "applying the same logic, with the same lack of restraint, courts could convert life insurance into health insurance."