FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES: "FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
At a time when insurance companies are seeking legislative concessions in many states, it may be instructive to review how one former insurance company lawyer exposed alleged corporate policies that, if true, would constitute fraudulent criminal behavior and bad faith. Amy Girod Zuniga, a former member of State Farm’s litigation team, gave a deposition in support of a lawsuit filed by Roderick and Krista Taylor in 1995. She testified that State Farm agents and employees forged customer signatures to exclude earthquake coverage from policies after the earthquake. She testified that State Farm was aware of the pattern of forgeries because the company paid claims whenever the forgery could be exposed and proven by the Insured."
Monday, August 23, 2010
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES:
"In fact, American Home, which provides Errors and Omissions coverage for State Farm’s agents, refused to accept the tender in State Farm agents’ forgery cases as American Home stated that State Farm had ample notice of conduct of this type by its agents and that State Farm had taken no meaningful steps to correct the problem. Therefore, American Home’s position was that State Farm had ratified and authorized the agents’ conduct so that State Farm was responsible for claims arising out of this type of conduct. EDITOR'S NOTE: State Farm attempted to have Zuniga’s deposition sealed. They argued that there was strategic information which should not be disseminated to the public. The Second District Court of Appeals in California ruled that it could be made public State Farm v. Superior Court (Taylor), no.B106120(Cal.Ct.App. filed Apr. 22, 1997).
"In fact, American Home, which provides Errors and Omissions coverage for State Farm’s agents, refused to accept the tender in State Farm agents’ forgery cases as American Home stated that State Farm had ample notice of conduct of this type by its agents and that State Farm had taken no meaningful steps to correct the problem. Therefore, American Home’s position was that State Farm had ratified and authorized the agents’ conduct so that State Farm was responsible for claims arising out of this type of conduct. EDITOR'S NOTE: State Farm attempted to have Zuniga’s deposition sealed. They argued that there was strategic information which should not be disseminated to the public. The Second District Court of Appeals in California ruled that it could be made public State Farm v. Superior Court (Taylor), no.B106120(Cal.Ct.App. filed Apr. 22, 1997).
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES: "INCRIMINATING AFFIDAVITS FILED BY A STATE FARM FORMER LITIGATION TEAM MEMBER
A former State Farm employee, Amy Girod Zuniga, who was a former member of State Farm’s litigation team, filed two affidavits in which not only allegations of blatant bad faith were made but also outright criminal conduct by high-ranking State Farm officials. Just several brief highlights of her affidavits follow:"
A former State Farm employee, Amy Girod Zuniga, who was a former member of State Farm’s litigation team, filed two affidavits in which not only allegations of blatant bad faith were made but also outright criminal conduct by high-ranking State Farm officials. Just several brief highlights of her affidavits follow:"
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES:
"A. She indicated that certain court documents filed by State Farm were false.
B. She was instructed by her supervisor never to use the word 'forgery' in connection with the forgery of signatures of State Farm’s Insureds by State Farm agents and agency employees. The word 'forgery' was referred to as the 'F word' by personnel in her unit."
"A. She indicated that certain court documents filed by State Farm were false.
B. She was instructed by her supervisor never to use the word 'forgery' in connection with the forgery of signatures of State Farm’s Insureds by State Farm agents and agency employees. The word 'forgery' was referred to as the 'F word' by personnel in her unit."
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES:
"C. She stated that a John Bishop, one of State Farm’s senior executives at corporate headquarters, instructed that State Farm’s witnesses should never admit that forgeries occurred, and if compelled to do so by Court Order, that they would develop a story in which they would try to make this practice look like a 'service.' (The forgeries were to void claims not to provide a service.)
D. That instead of complying with requests for discovery by various plaintiffs, a carefully created 'packet' from which many documents were removed was prepared. One of the items removed was the index. Their tactic was to give plaintiffs something containing no damaging information but which was voluminous enough to distract their attorneys."
"C. She stated that a John Bishop, one of State Farm’s senior executives at corporate headquarters, instructed that State Farm’s witnesses should never admit that forgeries occurred, and if compelled to do so by Court Order, that they would develop a story in which they would try to make this practice look like a 'service.' (The forgeries were to void claims not to provide a service.)
D. That instead of complying with requests for discovery by various plaintiffs, a carefully created 'packet' from which many documents were removed was prepared. One of the items removed was the index. Their tactic was to give plaintiffs something containing no damaging information but which was voluminous enough to distract their attorneys."
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES:
"E. Prior to Ms. Zuniga’s deposition, she was specifically instructed by her supervisor, Vanessa Gudeij, that under no circumstances was she to 'give up' the name of David Tannenbaum to plaintiff’s counsel. Mr. Tannenbaum had told her that identical, screened packets of discovery documents referred to above were to be produced in all earthquake cases in response to discovery requests, regardless of the specifics of the particular facts of the case."
"E. Prior to Ms. Zuniga’s deposition, she was specifically instructed by her supervisor, Vanessa Gudeij, that under no circumstances was she to 'give up' the name of David Tannenbaum to plaintiff’s counsel. Mr. Tannenbaum had told her that identical, screened packets of discovery documents referred to above were to be produced in all earthquake cases in response to discovery requests, regardless of the specifics of the particular facts of the case."
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES
FORMER STATE FARM EMPLOYEE TESTIFIES THAT STATE FARM AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES REGULARLY FORGE CUSTOMER SIGNATURES:
"F. She was given 'talking points,' a memorandum prepared by her supervisor, which contained untrue statements in which she was to memorize and give as her answers in the deposition.
G. She also stated in her affidavit that the written script referred to above was typical of the practices and procedures she observed at the company in connection with the preparation of company witnesses for deposition. She, herself, as part of her duties, participated in the preparation of many witnesses for deposition."
"F. She was given 'talking points,' a memorandum prepared by her supervisor, which contained untrue statements in which she was to memorize and give as her answers in the deposition.
G. She also stated in her affidavit that the written script referred to above was typical of the practices and procedures she observed at the company in connection with the preparation of company witnesses for deposition. She, herself, as part of her duties, participated in the preparation of many witnesses for deposition."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)