Scruggs encourages policyholders to boycott State Farm-Dale deal

Sounds like the Scruggs Katrina Group is looking to sign up more policyholders for lawsuits against State Farm.  They apparently are mining the 36,000 Mississippi policyholders who are eligible to participate in review and mediation of their claims — under a deal between State Farm and Insurance Commissioner George Dale that left the Scruggs Group standing on the sidewalk as the parade went by — through TV commercials warning folks not to "give in to big insurance" and to watch out for Dale, "a perpetual apologist for the industry."  No word on whether the Scruggs Group is preparing a second TV spot featuring servings of "political toast" to pigs wearing lipstick.

One curiosity here, the first link I provided was to the Scruggs Katrina blog, which normally features posts signed by Zach Scruggs.  I notice this post carries no byline.  Just wondering why.   

Via Mike the Actuary.

3 Comments

Filed under First Party Insurance

3 Responses to Scruggs encourages policyholders to boycott State Farm-Dale deal

  1. Layne

    This comment in particular from the Scruggs blog interests me: “It is obvious to us that they are putting profits above responsibilities.”
    Have they not yet figured out that State Farm is a “Mutual” Insurance company? While this obviously does not equal “not-for-profit”, it does mean that any profit is returned to the policyholders (who are the owners of the company) or reinvested in the company to provide better service, or bulk up reserves for future losses.
    It is difficult for me to see how this argument works. If they are arguing that SF is “putting profits above responsibilities,” then they are arguing that SF is taking advantage of these policyholders in order to benefit the rest of the country’s policyholders with these ill-gotten profits.
    That’s a strange motive (to me) to perpetrate the crime Scruggs accuses them of.

  2. Jimmy

    So Laine, you are saying that State Farm is the ideal company because they are a mutually owned company. Man you need to do some research on State Farm. Just Google “state farm lawsuit” and sit back and read for a while. I’m not talking about reading the pro/con PR stuff but some of the court cases that they have lost, throw out the Katrina ones and just read the others where State Farm has been caught red handed CHEATING those so precious owners.

  3. Layne

    In my previous post I was just arguing that profit is a strange motive for a mutual company to “cheat” its policyholders.
    I am well aware of past litigation against State Farm. However, I don’t believe that litigation on it’s own is proof of “cheating”. There are lawsuits every day in virtually every corner of the business-world, and both sides feel that they are interpreting their contract or agreement correctly. This doesn’t mean that one side is “cheating” the other, it just means that the two sides have differing views of the contract.
    I run a small office. I have prepared an employee handbook for my staff, which spells out the policies of my office. Every once in a while there is a disagreement regarding one of these policies with one of my staff. Is this proof that I “cheat” my employees? I hope not! However, even though I wrote the book, and know how it has been interpreted over the years, and consistently apply the same interpretation, there are still disagreements from time to time.
    This proves nothing, other than human-beings have the ability to view contracts and agreements through very different lenses, and come to different conclusions.
    Let’s not forget Scruggs motive for bringing law-suits. I would venture to guess that they have made a profit on these cases.
    Could Scruggs be accused of putting profits above the rule of law?
    That argument would probably be ignored out-of-hand by most anyone, but when they say this about a mutual insurance company it is taken as gospel.