Talk:State Farm/Archive1

src: pbs.twimg.com

Video Talk:State Farm/Archive1

Large image

Can something be done about this obscenely large? It doesn't add to the article, and is large enough to probably make the page take too long to load for a lot of users. Peyna 18:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I thumbed it. Also the 3,000 employees at CS is an estimate, but I'm positive it's pretty accurate. Jtrost 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually the corporate south facility houses about 8,000 employees while the main corporate building houses about 6,000 employees. Srcrowl 03:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur about corporate south -- there were well more than 3,000 while I was there. Of course, many of those working there were contractors, so it could well be only around 3,000 or so actual employees. 6,000 at the main corporate complex sounds a little high to me, but I don't really know. older?wiser 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the people who work at corporate south are externals, provided by third party vendors. They're technically not considered employees. We can either estimate the number of SF employees, or estimate the total number of people. I don't have an opinion either way. Jtrost 06:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Maps Talk:State Farm/Archive1

Hurricane Katrina lawsuits

My thinking on the Hurricane Katrina lawsuits is that they would be more appropriately covered in one of the Hurricane Katrina articles, probably by adding a section to Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina that addresses insurance issues, or possibly in a new article. State Farm is only one of several insurance companies targeted by these lawsuits; in addition, there are issues relating to the reinsurance companies, the National Flood Insurance program, and the state-run insurance pools. Once that is done, the coverage in the articles on the insurance companies should probably be limited to a sentence or two that links to the Hurrican Katrina article. Thoughts? --Mwalimu59 20:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is an article about the company, not specific lawsuits against it. As an insurance company, lawsuits are filed against it every day, some with merit, most without. Highlighting a few suits that may be overturned does not really do much to frame the company, especially when the majority of customers must be happy with them or the company would not be as large as it is. I am a little too close to the issue, so I won't make the changes, but I do think this article is not very balanced.--Thresher 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag. The section fails to adequately explain the issue or State Farm's responses, and is undue weight. Some of the links are utterly irrelevant (State Farm is a non-profit mutual insurer, for example). -- TedFrank 11:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All of that text really ought be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted through and such. It cannot stay as unsourced material, its too defamatory. IvoShandor 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I just did it. More than half the article cannot be called "Criticism" and then just go on a tireless rant against the company, that's way too POV to stand as is, the text isn't trashed, you will find it below.

src: earthzine.org

Criticism

Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina's unprecedented storm surge had a severe impact on residents of the Gulf coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Alabama. Thousands of homeowners lost their homes and their way of life. Unfortunately, many had failed to purchase adequate insurance. According to news accounts, fewer than a quarter of gulf coast residents had purchased flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. While insurers (including State Farm Insurance) paid out billions to policy holders in the hurricane's aftermath (State Farm paying more than $5 billion itself), individuals have pursued lawsuits in attempt to recover losses which they claim should be covered by their insurance contracts.

One major issue pursued in these cases has been whether insurance contract exclusions for water damage are valid and enforceable. In a much-covered lawsuit Paul and Julie Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., ruled that such provisions were valid and enforceable. However, the judge invalidated an exclusion for wind damage that occurs in conjunction with water damage, so the Leonards were able to recover for losses due to wind. Similarly U.S. Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican and U.S. Representative Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat have pursued their own personal claims against State Farm as well as legislative changes. State Farm, for its part, has said that it has settled more than 84,700 home, commercial and personal property claims and paid out more than $1.1 billion in Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Kerri and Cori Rigsby, two former independent adjusters (working for E.A. Renfroe) who worked for State Farm Insurance exclusively for 8 years have claimed that State Farm Insurance supervisors systematically demanded that Hurricane Katrina damage reports be buried or replaced or changed so that the company would not have to pay policyholders' claims in Mississippi. Kerri and Cori Rigsby, say they have turned over thousands of internal company documents and their own detailed statement to the FBI and Mississippi state investigators. Per The Birmingham News (December 12), U.S. District Judge William Acker, Jr., ruled "Moran and Rigsby clandestinely copied approximately 15,000 confidential documents off of State Farm's computer." Acker also ruled the women violated their employee agreement with Renfroe.

On January 11, 2007, the courts ruled against State Farm in the Hurricane Katrina case involving lawsuits where State Farm said damages were from flooding and not from hurricane wind. It has widely used this reasoning to turn down insurance claims related to the hurricane damage.

On February 14, 2007, State Farm announced they would no longer be selling new policies to homeowners in the state of Mississippi. Though the insurer has claimed it is due to the legal and business conditions in the state becoming untenable, State Farm's legal troubles that resulted from hurricane Katrina undoubtedly played a major role in the decision. State Farm announced that while current policy holders will keep their coverage, they also announced they may not renew current plans when the policy expires, leaving the door open for State Farm to halt business in Mississippi altogether. At the time of the announcement State Farm was the insurer for approximately 30% of homeowners in the state of Mississippi, making them the state's most popular insurer.

In Louisiana, State Farm is represented by the former Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, Edgerton L. "Bubba" Henry, through the law firm Adams and Reese in Baton Rouge.

• Trent Lott Sues State Farm over Katrina Damage
• State Farm's Response to Hurricane Katrina
• VIDEO 20/20 Webcast Katrina Insurance
• ABC's 20/20 Mischaracterizes State Farm's Claims-Handling Process
• Profits for Insurers Are Soaring
• Sisters blow whistle on Katrina claims

• Judge Requires Return of Documents

Car Insurance Claims

A recent investigative report by CNN found that major car insurance companies, led by State Farm and Allstate Insurance, are increasingly fighting claims from those injured by their insured members. In some cases the settlement proposed amounts to just $50 or the threat that any lawsuit will be made so expensive and time-consuming that it would not be worth the victim's time. [1]

src: pbs.twimg.com

Criticism Section

Thresher 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC) It seems the same criticism comments were added to the Allstate page. This was my response there:

I fail to understand why this is mentioned:

"An investigative report in February 2007 by CNN found that major car insurance companies, lead by State Farm and Allstate Insurance, are increasingly fighting auto insurance claims from those who incurred soft-tissue injuries by their insured members.[6]"

Insurance companies have a vested interest in not paying for questionable injuries. Every dollar that is paid on a non-meritorious claim rewards people for anti-social behavior. All insurance companies have a duty to society to not pay more than they owe. Additionally, insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders, or in the case a of a mutual company, their policy holders to pay only what is truly owed because insurance policy costs are directly affected by the underwriting history.

Soft tissue injuries are contentious because by their nature, there is no way to actually detect the purported injury. Insurance companies look at each claim individually. If they see a claim for soft injuries on a car with little or no damage, would it not make sense for the company to investigate it further? Would it not make sense for the company to question whether or not an injury actually occurred as a result of the accident?

Honestly, this section seems to be continually updated by people with an axe to grind. It is not balanced and doesn't begin to show both sides of the issues.

As I've mentioned before, I am too close to the situation, so I will not make the change. But I seriously hope that someone can objectively write about any criticisms with an open mind.

I am also in a situation. An automobile ran a stop sign and hit my automobile and State Farm is using many excuses to call the accident 20 percent my fault. They are giving me 80 percent of the damages after 2 weeks. In short State Farm Sucks. Dont Use Them. (There were no injuries so an attorney said it would be more expensive than it was worth to go after them.) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.253.90 (talk o contribs)

Without knowing the specifics of your case, it's inappropriate for anyone here to rush to judgment as to the appropriateness of State Farm's actions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is State Farm's duty to minimize the cost to its actual customer (the person who hit you), for a number of reasons (fiduciary duty since policyholders are shareholders, potential ramifications against the policyholder based on amount of damages (if your state has insurance points or something similar), etc.). --Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.35 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that every claim paid results in an increase in costs to the insurance company, and hence an increase in premiums down the road. There's no free lunch here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

src: earthzine.org

Patni issue

Patni is the one that short-changed its employees. State Farm would have paid money to Patni, not to the Patni employees. The cited article makes no claim of any culpability on State Farm's part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This Patni issue should be viewed as a topic within the broader discussion of StateFarm hiring Patni to bring in H1B recipients from India during a time when State Farm was laying off their own workers. Then State Farm hired a company that had to settle with the government amid charges of H1B abuse.User talk:Bobheath 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with BB on this one; it appears to be an issue between Patni and their employees. I'm not aware of State Farm laying off any workers - do you have references for that? Overall, it may be appropriate for the article about Patni, but I don't see why it should be mentioned here as well. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Bobheath is putting a personal interpretation on it that is not warranted by the citations. If anything, it sounds like State Farm paid way much more to Patni than they should have, so it sounds like State Farm got ripped off by Patni. Hiring Indian companies and other outsourcees is common among large corporations, and some may find it reprehensible (or at least America-unfriendly), but there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on the part of State Farm, within the cited article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation speaks about the layoffs, in the context of the H1B abuse. "State Farm has had layoffs as it has brought in Patni workers. Outplacement specialist Challenger, Gray & Christmas says the insurer has let go 10,000 workers nationwide since 1995, though (Dick) Luedke says only one quarter of those were "involuntary severances." That quote was taken from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070057782750.htm, the article used in the citation.

In addition Dick Luedke, a State Farm spokesman, says that visa workers receive fair treatment. "Working conditions at all our State Farm locations are monitored and maintained without distinction of State Farm or vendor employee," that quote coming from the same article. This citation clearly contradicts State Farm Luedke's statements.User talk:Bobheath 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The unfair treatment, if any, (i.e. low salaries) was at the hands of the employer, which is Patni. "Working conditions" at State Farm would indicate working environment, i.e. presumably they aren't stuffed into smaller cubes than State Farm employees have. If State Farm has laid off employees in favor of outsourcees, that's not necessarily a good thing for the laid off employees, but there is no allegation of any wrongdoing by State Farm, in the article or in any of your quotations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of personal interpretation is unwarranted. I have cited every claim with a source. In fact if anyone is making personal interpretations, it is Baseball Bugs doing so in his previous statements. User talk:Bobheath 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are spinning it into blaming State Farm for Patni's having paid lower-than-expected wages to Patni employees. There is no such allegation in the article cited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the accusations of personal interpretation and spinning against me are unwarranted and would be more appropriately directed at yourself. I have citations from reputable sources. You have no citations.User talk:Bobheath 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not cited anything which accuses State Farm of any wrongdoing. Somehow you're seeing wrongdoing on State Farm's part, but it's not there that I can see. Hence, it's your intrepretation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, you are saying that Luedke says State Farm treated its outsourcees fairly, and you're saying they did not. Where is the citation that State Farm did not treat its outsourcees fairly? Patni clearly did not. But how did State Farm treat those people unfairly? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The BusinessWeek article cites the fact that State Farm was laying off workers while Patni was being hired to bring in H1B visa recipients. That is my interpretation and anyone's interpretation who has reading comprehension skills beyond the sixth grade level. The same scenario exists with the issue that State Farm claims to monitor the work environment of those H1B workers. Evidently you have the authority to remove these comments, and you have done so. I have merely tried to provide a more complete story of the situation here by using well respected sources, and have been overruled by you and the other Wikipedia person, who originally removed my comments. Fine. You have prevailed for now, in the limited context of the world as viewed by the Wikipedia editors. However, history will provide the information that exists in these well respected citations, even if the editors of Wikipedia, for what ever reason that they choose, choose to remove those citations from their website.User talk:Bobheath 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that first sentence is true, how does that, or any other statement in the citation, demonstrate that State Farm wronged the Patni employees in some way? That's what I want you to tell me, and so far you have not answered that question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my first comment. "This Patni issue should be viewed as a topic within the broader discussion of StateFarm hiring Patni to bring in H1B recipients from India during a time when State Farm was laying off their own workers. Then State Farm hired a company that had to settle with the government amid charges of H1B abuse."

The article clearly cites the layoff. The BusinessWeek article clearly says that these Patni H1B recipients were employed during the layoff. Read the second page. The article clearly states that State Farm claims to concern itself with the working conditions of all of its employees, direct or temporary. I am not spinning anything. I am not making any personal interpretations. The article speaks for itself. Do you want to cite the article? If not, fine. Do you want to say that State Farm is not related to this article? Fine, but we all know that State Farm is central to the article, no matter what spin or personal interpretation you or the Wikipedia editor, that originally removed my comments, says.User talk:Bobheath 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. Please tell me how State Farm demonstrated a lack of concern about the working conditions (i.e. the work environment at the State Farm Building) for the Patni employees? I realize that you are working on some kind of agenda connected with the H1B visa. I understand that. What I don't understand is why you think State Farm is culpable for the apparently low wages Patni paid their employees. I could see where the laid off State Farm employees might be unhappy with State Farm. I don't see where the Patni employees have a beef about State Farm. Their complaint is with their employer, which is Patni. In short, what specific complaint would a Patni employee have against State Farm? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have explained this issue to the limits of my ability. Do you have a suggestion on how this topic should be listed within the context of State Farm hiring Patni to bring in H1B recipients to fill State Farm jobs during a time when State Farm was laying off its own employees? Do you have an idea on how to explain that the employees were later victims of fraud and abuse at the hands of State Farm's contractor in spite of State Farm's claim that State Farm monitors the working conditions of all its employees, temporary or direct? Do you have a way to state that it was the Federal Government that later prevailed on Patni to make these employees whole and not State Farm? If so, I am all ears. Otherwise, I have explained this issue to the limits of my ability, and the users of Wikipedia are penalized for my inability to explain this to you better. Because I have already spent too much time on this. Perhaps a person in the future will do a better job than me. Or better yet, perhaps the users of Wikipedia will discover that Wikipedia was not able to give a full explanation of how State Farm behaves when State Farm lays off people and has to find someone else to do State Farm's job. Thanks for your time. I have already spend too much time on this. I know that you have spent a lot of time on this topic too.

As far as your claiming to realize that I am working on some kind of agenda, I don't see where that claim has any role in this discussion. I could say that I have a feeling that sometimes powerful people or corporations are able to hire people to become Wikipedia editors who turn Wikipedia into a public relations tool for the corporation, and unscrupulous editors from the cloak of anonymity do the corporation's bidding. I could argue that sometimes those editors stonewall the users of Wikipedia with circular and contradictory arguments designed to frustrate the users of Wikipedia in their pursuit of the truth. We both know that that happens. When that happens the users of Wikipedia will just get the truth somewhere else, and the unscrupulous editors will be able to make a little more money at the expense of getting the truth from Wikipedia. Even if that was true, it's not the end of the world. Good Day!User talk:Bobheath 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have still not answered my question. What "working conditions" are you referring to? The federal case was brought against Patni. It is Patni who pays the Patni employees' wages, not State Farm. By what factual basis do you figure that State Farm is in any way culpable for the wages Patni paid its employees? Are you trying to say State Farm is supposed to regulate the wages Patni paid its employees? If so, on what grounds? The wages paid are not "working conditions". Working conditions are the work environment in the building. For example, if the SFI employees had offices and the contractors had cardboard boxes. Or if the contractors were not allowed to take a lunch break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have told you that I have explained this to the best of my ability. I'm done. Perhaps you should let the user make that decision. Is BusinessWeek a respected source? If not the user can make that determination. Otherwise, the user will get the information from a place other than Wikipedia.User talk:Bobheath 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My $.02. Outsourcing in the American economy is hardly notable anymore. It's probably more notable to say who doesn't outsource than to say who does. I'd say that adding a paragraph to this article amounts to undue weight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Wikipedia has come to a bunch of anonymous, unaccountable Wikipedia editors not noting well sourced stories; only noting their opinion? It is their opinion; it is their two cents. Are you an editor? If so, I guess that your comments speak for themselves. You have determined that outsourcing is not notable, therefore, Wikipedia is not going to note it. Your comments speak for themselves. As a matter of fact BB accused me of letting my personal opinion, my spin develop the story, in spite of my citation of well established sources. You make no bones about the fact that it is your opinion. and it is your OPINION that will prevail. Thanks for making my point for me, whoever you are. BusinessWeek saw fit to note this story, but this unaccountable, anonymous Wikipedia editor sees no reason to note it. BTW, the second article came from the Associated Press, but what do they know? This anonymous Wikipedia sees no reason to note it. Is one Wikipedia editor using circular, contradictory arguments not enough to counter my argument with Wikipedia-logic? Now you have to bring in an editor that uses his opinion as the sole determining factor as to what Wikipedia will list?User talk:Bobheath 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The story is not about State Farm, it's about the Patni company. When are you going to answer my question as to what "working conditions" State Farm failed to monitor? Are you trying to say that State Farm was somehow supposed to monitor what chunk of their $100,000 per employee was actually going to the employees? The article doesn't say that, nor does it criticize State Farm in any way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, and the user still refuses to answer a direct question. I just want to know if he thinks that State Farm was supposed to be monitoring the wages that Patni paid its employees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

BB your comments are totally untrue. I have explained this to the limits of my ability. I have cooperated for hours. I know when you are stonewalling. For the last time, this story is about State Farm laying off workers and hiring unscrupulous H1B contractors to do their work. User talk:Bobheath 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the article again, and I don't see one word that impeaches State Farm in any way. If they paid Patni $100,000 per employee, then Patni is taking more than its fair share. That's why the Patni employees complained against Patni. There is not one word in that article that indicates the Patni employees had any complaints about State Farm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

What does $61,611 million mean?

The revenue / net income, etc listing says, for example: US $61,611 million (2007)... What is 61,611 million? Does this mean 61.6 billion? I request that this be formatted the same as every other article that lists these kinds of numbers (ie, $61.6 billion or million - I can't even tell which one it's trying to say). Thanks. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk o contribs) 05:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Trivia section

I'm not party to it but I'll weigh in on the recent almost-edit-war on the trivia section... In my opinion, the "Like a good neighbor" jingle written by Barry Manilow deserves mention in the article and should be restored somewhere (it could probably be shortened somewhat). The rest of the trivia section that hasn't already been incorporated into the article can probably be left off. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that. But I can't accept the wholesale re-adding of all trivia items no matter whether it sourced or notable, and then calling the re-addition reversion of vandalism, as Baseball Bugs did. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been re-added. And I agree completely - one of the most annoying people I've had to deal with on Wikipedia was known for edit-warring other contributors and frequently characterized their edits as "rubbish", "crap", and "vandalism" in his edit summaries. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or how about "useless", as the deleting editor called it? That's strictly his opinion, it's inflammatory, and I responded in a like manner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia