Stories

State Farm Insurance Company

Since the 1980s, our family has respected, relied upon, and trusted State Farm’s commitment to value, honesty, and integrity. Like a Good Neighbor…State Farm Is there. A slogan that evolved into a household name in which the general public trusted, relied upon at the time of an unexpected emergency, accident, or disaster.



Unfortunately, since November 17, 2002, State Farm has not been a good neighbor to one of its many life time customers. State Farm’s imaged, household name, integrity, morals and values has diminished by its failure to provide Mr. Charles E. Gibson, a faithful customer and first party claimant with the full entitlements of his own insurance coverage.

State Farm claims representatives refused, denied, and by no lawful authority retained the maximum of payment to a loyal senior policy holder whom is permanently disable as a direct result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 17, 2002.

The Maryland Insurance Commissioner requires that State Farms complies with rules and regulations set forth by Maryland Insurance Administration. State Farm has not complied. The insurer (State Farm) has provided no legitimate justification; law, reason or theory for its refusal to pay the insured the maximum amount of coverage’s under insured’s (1) Uninsured Motorist coverage and insured’s (2) Bodily Insurance Coverage. Moreover, state farm never issued a letter of denial regarding Mr. Gibson’s claims.


State Farms’ offer derived from one’s personal feelings of being fair and reasonable is a blatant disregard of insured’s permanent physical disability, medical bills, wage losses, future medical bills, rehabilitative treatments, excruciating pain & suffering, bias, discriminatory; and age discrimination.

State Farms treatment towards its insured is incomprehensible, ruthless, outrageous, dehumanizing, and despicable. Defendant’s whom caused the accident are treated with respect, dignity, kindness, and the utmost courtesy. State Farm never pursued, investigated, or attempt to seek retribution from defendants until 3-years after the accident which occurred on November 17, 2002.
State Farm takes great pride and pleasure in its harassment, unwarranted refusal to pay insured maximum of insurance payment, maltreatment, false statements (prejudice) towards insurers, prolong litigation, and its State-Wide fiduciary breach of its contractual obligations to insurers. State Farm prefers to pay judgments well over 14 million dollars instead of simply paying the maximum amount of its insured’s claims that are accepted as first party.

More specifically, when a first party claim has not been denied by its insurer, as in the case of Mr. Gibson, State Farm’s treatment towards Mr. Gibson is beyond irreprehensible, ruthless, prejudice, hatred, and pure evil towards a lifelong faithful customer. This is no excuse for a Trillion dollar conglomerate to deny a measly $200, 000, 00 dollars to a first party claimant from his OWN policy in which he purchased based on a breach of promise. No excuse!! It’s disgusting. State Farm has evolved into another Enron, WorldCom, and Halliburton.

The late Enron, Worldcom, Disney, Halliburton, Jack Ambromoff, and others soon realized or thought they couldn’t be touched, investigated or held accountable for repeated acts of Fraud, Deception, Impropriety, and Corruption. The former trillion dollar conglomerate was reduced to an “E” which is the only letter that remains from the spelling of E nron serves as a reminder to conglomerates that believe they are above the law.

State Farm’s history of Fraud, Deception, Impropriety, and Corruption will befall the mighty conglomerate to an “S” The collapse of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing and Arthur Andersen, and the huge payouts to top officers, have dominated the headlines over the past two years. Every time we thought we had heard it all, along came yet another scandal involving lots of money and lots of denials of wrongdoing. The prevailing attitude in corner offices seems to be grabbing all the money you can while you can, and don't worry about little things like ethics, morals or the law.


In good faith, it would be FAIR and REASONABLE for State Farm to compensate Mr. Gibson (insured) for the maximum amount of his benefit; and pursue both named uninsured defendant’s whom caused the accident. State Farm has failed to pursue named defendants. However, the insured (Mr. Gibson) is harassed, denied benefits, subjected to maltreatment, disrespected, and arbitrarily denied benefits based an opinion of State Farm’s claim examiners feelings of what’s fair and reasonable.

Is it fair and reasonable to deny a permanently disable senior citizen claimant a benefit which he is entitled? Is it fair and reasonable to deny a faithful long term customer a benefit in which he has purchased? Is it fair and reasonable to further delay a claim accepted 3-years prior to date as of February 6, 2006?

Moreover, to deny a complaint based on one’s feelings of what is fair and reasonable clearly violates Maryland Annotated Codes under Articles: 48A, § 230A; 1997, ch. 35, § 2; 1998, ch. 111, § 2; ch. 112, § 2; ch. 755. State Farm has also violated provisions under § 27-303. Unfair claim settlement practices, Articles An. Code 1957, Art. 48A, § 544; 1996, ch. 11; 1997, ch. 263, settlement of claims Involving a disappearing motorist or Unidentified Motorist; .03 Unfair Claim Settlement Practices, and .04 Filing a Notice of Claim.

State Farm is a Trillion dollar conglomerate. Has the earning capacity to recover payouts to claimant’s exceeding a million dollars within a 30 minute lunch break!!
However, Mr. Gibson’s Good Neighbor would rather deny a longtime, faithful, claimant the maximum amount of his benefits in which he purchased based on Mr. Clyde Reed’s feeling of what’s “Fair and Reasonable” Mr. Gibson nor did millions of other State Farm insurers agree to contract with a (1) feeling, (2) thought, or (3) perception.

Unfortunately, the Honorable Senator Lott, Mississippi, has joined the ranks of victimized insurers along with well over millions of Katrina victims by State Farm’s refusal to honestly and fairly pay the maximum amount of claims. Honorable Senator Lott filed a lawsuit against State Farm 2005. He too, has experience the blatant denial of claims owed to State Farm’s insurers.

Statistically State Farm has breached its Fiduciary obligation to Insurers State wide. State Farm’s own agent has testified in the U.S. Supreme Courts to the ruthless, unscrupulous, and predatory misdeeds of State Farm. See Published by Phoenix New Times November 16, 2000 – “Snake Killer they call it "Snake Farm." Lawyers like Cal Thur battled State Farm to protect consumers from their own insurance company. Moral of the story: Don't have an accident written By Laura Laughlin. State Farm had purposely dragged out Zilisch's case, ignored repeated opinions that her injury was permanent, and acted according to its "deliberate practice of underpaying claims nationwide."

Among the business practices uncovered: “The company routinely tried to lowball" its own policyholders who filed claims with them -- particularly those who were most vulnerable -- by offering them settlement amounts less than what the claims were actually worth. While it is impossible to tell how many claimants simply accept a payment that is less than they are entitled to, those who dare to challenge State Farm find their cases intentionally dragged out in an effort to wear them down.”

See Rawlings v. Apocada, the court held that an actual breach of the insurance contract was not essential in order to establish breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Deese court quoted from Rawlings: "The implied covenant is breached, whether the carrier pays the claim or not, when its conduct damages the very security which the insured sought to gain by buying insurance." 838 P.2d at 1269.


State Farm has BREACHED its Fiduciary contractual obligations to Mr. Gibson, Honorable Senator Lott, Katrina victims, and millions of other disenfranchised claimants whom have experience delays in claims processing, claim examiners refusal to settle for the maximum amount of claims accepted as ‘first-party- claims. In bad faith, State Farm willfully denied Mr. Gibson his right (due process) to appeal rejected settlement offers.

See Curtis B. Campbell, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. No. 981564 F I L E D April 23, 2004. The Supreme Court concluded that: “We hold that State Farm's behavior toward the Campbells was so egregious as to warrant a punitive damages award of $9,018,780.75, an amount nine times greater than the amount of compensatory and special damages.”

State Farm was also cited for its “reprehensibility of tortious conduct towards the Campbells which is the same conduct State Farm has taken against Mr. Charles E. Gibson, Honorable Trent Lott, Katrina victims, State Farm’s agents. See also Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 808

The Supreme Court Justices ruled that, “Lastly, we consider whether the substantial emotional damages sustained by the Campbells were the result of State Farm's intentional malice, trickery, and deceit. We conclude that the damages sustained by the Campbells were no mere accident. At trial, Ray Summers, the adjuster who handled the Campbell case, testified that State Farm resorted to various tactics to create prejudice in the event the case ever went before a jury. Campbell I, 2001 UT 89 at 29.

For example, State Farm manager Bob Noxon instructed Summers to manufacture the false story that Todd Ospital, who was killed in the automobile accident for which Mr. Campbell was found to be at fault, was speeding because he was on his way to see a pregnant girlfriend. Id. In truth, there was no pregnant girlfriend, nor was Mr. Ospital even speeding; this story was invented only to cause prejudice in the record. Id. This deceitful conduct can only be explained as part of a scheme to reduce State Farm's economic exposure. The possibility that its dissembling would expose the Campbells to an excess judgment must have been apparent to State Farm. To react as it did when the excess judgment became a reality only confirms the toxicity of State Farm's behavior.”


In accordance to the insurance code of Maryland, I request a full investigation by the Maryland Insurance Commission and the Maryland Investigative Fraud Unit on my behalf.