First, Terry wrote us the following:

I would love to know how to stop junk mail from State Farm. Over the last month I have received 13 different solicitations from local agents. No one seems to know how to stop this madness! Glad State Farm really takes this whole green thing seriously!

We asked him who he'd contacted at State Farm, and he told us an agent and corporate via their website. That's when he received the following response:

Dear Terry,

Thank you for contacting State Farm regarding our Privacy Policy. No, but there are ways you can reduce the number of solicitations you receive from companies with whom you do not have a customer relationship if they are members of the Direct Marketing Association. You can write to the following addresses: · For marketing solicitations received by mail, write to: Mail Preference Service, c/o Direct Marketing Association, PO Box 9008, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008. · For marketing solicitations received by telephone, write to: Telephone Preference Service, c/o Direct Marketing Association, PO Box 9014, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9014. You may also contact specific companies and ask that they do not contact you either through direct mail or telephone solicitations. This will not stop calls relating to your existing relationship with the company. Certain states may have state-run programs whereby individuals can be placed on a "do-not-call" list to avoid marketing calls from businesses with whom they do not have an existing relationship. Your state will provide details on how to be placed on such a list. The Privacy Policy can be viewed online at If you have further questions regarding the State Farm Privacy Policy or would like to indicate your do not share preference, please call the State Farm Privacy Information Line at 800-865-6035.

State Farm Insurance®
Internet Support Representative

Then, earlier this week, he contacted us again:

Ahhhh....three more today (see pic).....I guess the madness will never stop!

 
 

Humphrmi writes:

I recently purchased a 1963 Chrysler Newport as a project car for my son and I. It needs new paint, and a new power steering pump. Other than that, the car is in pristine condition, literally having only been driven by a little old lady to church every Sunday. The engine purrs like a kitten.

I called my insurance agent, Bernie Majewski, who sells exclusively State Farm insurance, and began the process of insuring the vehicle. I was told when I first called that State Farm offers a special discount program for antique vehicles that are only driven to and from car shows, parades, and auto shops. This is perfect, because that's all I do with the car, and it matches the use restrictions of the license plates I purchased (Antique Vehicle plates in Illinois have the exact same restriction - car shows, parades, and shops.) Otherwise it sits in my garage. I was quoted about $200 / 6 Months for basic liability and a declared value of $2000, which is what I paid for the car. State Farm also asked for pictures of the car, and I complied.

Today I received a call from an employee of my State Farm agent, informing me that they cannot write the policy as an "Antique Vehicle" until I "restore" the car to its original condition. Since the car is nearly pristine, I asked what, exactly, they required to be restored. Their answer? "You have to paint the car". Without the special Antique Vehicle program, the cost of basic liability and no comp/collision will be $300 for 6 months. That's 33% more with no damage coverage.

So it boils down to this: The State of Illinois sold me discounted AV plates with these usage restrictions, so I legally cannot drive the car except in shows, parades, etc. If I violate these restrictions, I will get a ticket and could lose my license plates. I'm fine with these restrictions, and will accept them from State Farm as well. Yet State Farm won't give me a discount for the agreed restricted usage of the vehicle unless I paint it. Apparently fresh paint makes you less likely to incur liability while driving.

Best of all:

The kicker? I just got a quote from Progressive online for $161 for the same basic liability for the same car. They don't even want pictures.

Our resident expert in all things car related recommends Grundy Worldwide as an alternative for insuring vintage cars.

Leave other helpful recommendations in the comments.

Surprisingly, the niche market has yet to develop specific plans for the iPhone. From The Unofficial Apple Weblog:

As far as coverage through companies like specialized electronics or computer insurance providers is concerned, I had a much harder time finding anything substantial. Most of the companies I spoke with didn't have policies in place, and only Safeware confirmed that they were "seriously considering" introducing iPhone coverage.

Damaged or stolen iPhones are terribly expensive to replace; insurance might be worth the extra price.

Insure your iPhone, because AT&T won't [The Unofficial Apple Weblog]
(Photo: globalreset)

According to the suit, Angie Duckworth's father let an acquaintance, Angie Jones, borrow a car in 2002. Ms. Duckworth reported the accident to State Farm, who erroneously reported her as being the driver. (Apparently they can't understand how two women could have the same first name but different last names).

After discovering the wrong information in 2004, the plaintiff asked State Farm to fix the info and they agreed to. In 2006, the wrong information was still on her report, which could harm her ability to get insurance in the future. At one point, contends the lawsuit. "Choicepoint told Plaintiff in order to dispute the wreck she would need to contact State Farm directly. Choicepoint falsely hid from Plaintiff that she should dispute directly in writing with Choicepoint."

Choicepoint is one of the largest consumer reporting agencies in America, and it seems to be beholden to none of the citizen's whose data it manages/mangles.

If you manage to find that Choicepoint has minsinformation in its records on you, you can lobby to have it fixed by writing them a letter.

ChoicePoint Insurance Consumer Center
P.O. Box 105108
Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5108
1-888-497-0011 (toll free); Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST
www.consumerdisclosure.com

Clashing With Choicepoint - One Consumer's Challenge [Alabama Consumer Law Blog]
(Photo: I Can Has Cheeseburger?)

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there... to criminally prosecute its insureds on baseless fraud charges, and then to get popped for an $8 million verdict for malicious prosecution. A lawyer friend of mine in Missouri passed along this e-mail to me. I can't summarize all the bad acts State Farm committed against its insured in two sentences - you've gotta read this for yourself...

This incredibly twisted story speaks for itself, inside...

Via bflawfirm:

James P. Frickleton and Michael C. Rader after a three week trial obtained a $8,645,000 verdict for their clients malicious prosecution and tort of outrage claims against State Farm and the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Plaintiff Jennie Hampton's 1990 Toyota Four Runner, valued at $10,300 and insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, was stolen from her residence on the night of December 21, 1997. At this time Ms. Hampton's lived with his half brother and co-plaintiff, Marvin Vail. The following day Jennie reported the theft in person to both State Farm and the Olathe Police Department. Five days later the vehicle was found burned and a total loss on a rural road in Miami County, Kansas. Subsequently, both the Olathe Police Department and the Miami County Sheriff's Department investigated the theft and arson and determined that plaintiffs were not involved.

Despite two separate law enforcement agencies finding no evidence to implicate the plaintiffs, State Farm, through its Special Investigative Unit, conducted its own independent investigation and denied Jennie's claim by concluding that she and Marvin Vail were guilty of insurance fraud. Specifically, State Farm asserted that Marvin, who was employed at a towing company, towed the Four-Runner to the rural area and conspired with Ms. Hampton to burn the vehicle in an attempt at falsely collecting insurance proceeds. Through their mechanical experts, whom they paid over $400,000 in the previous ten years, State Farm concluded that the engine was inoperable before the fire, and that plaintiffs were responsible for both the inoperability and arson.

Simultaneous with this independent investigation, Jennie Hampton filed a Breach of Contract claim against State Farm in Johnson County, Kansas. Shortly thereafter, State Farm, through its attorney, overtly threatened the unwarranted criminal prosecution of Ms. Hampton if she didn't "back off" from her claim. Regardless of this threat, Jennie continued to pursue her claim. Notwithstanding State Farms long held conclusion that plaintiffs were guilty of a crime, it was not until after this threat that they instigated prosecution.

Two years from the date of the theft, the day any potential criminal statute of limitations were to run, Marvin Vail and Jennie Hampton were charged with felony insurance fraud in Johnson County, Kansas. The bases for the State's charges derived entirely from information provided by State Farm and co-defendant, the National Insurance Crime Bureau. It was later uncovered that during their independent investigation, State Farm's Special Investigative Unit threatened an independent witness to solicit perjury, concealed and disregarded clear exculpatory evidence, reported what information they did collect in a false manner, and directed the conclusions of their mechanical expert. State Farm, knowing they did not have access to the Johnson County District Attorney's Office, then provided this one sided and erroneous information to NICB, requesting instead that they refer the case to the Johnson County District Attorney for charging.

NICB followed State Farm's instruction and, through its employee and retired KBI agent who as an active agent worked side by side with the DA, presented the file to the Johnson District Attorney. Prior to this, the NICB had done absolutely no independent investigation to either confirm or deny the facts presented by State Farm. Rather, while presenting this information to the D.A., NICB admittedly "watered down" exculpatory evidence trying to instigate charging. Additionally, while meeting with the Johnson County D.A., NICB withheld critical evidence by not informing the prosecutor that it was State Farm, not NICB, which was behind the investigation and referral.

After reviewing the information provided, felony insurance fraud charges were filed against both Jennie Hampton and Marvin Vail. Prior to this neither Hampton nor Vail had any criminal history. As a result of the charges they were arrested, faced the extreme humiliation, anxiety and expense that is tied with being criminal defendants.

Following the criminal charges, State Farm continued to work behind the scenes preparing the State's witnesses for the preliminary hearing testimony, claiming privilege on documents sought by the prosecutor, attempting to keep crucial evidence from being inspected by plaintiffs' criminal attorneys, closely monitoring the criminal trial and providing well-prepared witnesses to testify at trial.

Eventually, on May 10, 2001, after a ten day criminal trial, both Jennie and Marvin were acquitted of all charges. Rather than showing remorse for instigating the wrongful prosecution, State Farm continued to not only proclaim Hampton and Vail's guilt, but deny Ms. Hampton's claim.

After the acquittals, Jennie Hampton's breach claim in Johnson County, Kansas against State Farm was dismissed and re-filled with her and Marvin's claims for malicious prosecution and the tort of outrage against State Farm and the NICB. After a three week trial in Jackson County, but before verdict, defendant NICB entered into a 537.065 high low agreement with a high of $100, 000 and low of $110,000 for Mr. Vail and $150,000 and $160,000 for Ms. Hampton. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on all counts, and after a post trial hearing the Court entered judgment against NICB as set forth in the 537.065 agreement. The Court also entered judgment against State Farm for $200,000 in actual damages for Ms. Hampton and $175,000 for Marvin Vail. For her breach claim against State Farm the Court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Hampton for $251,700 in attorney fees. Additionally, the court entered judgment in favor of Marvin Vail and Jennie Hampton individually for their punitive claims against State Farm in the amount of $4,000,000 each.

This was posted in January 2006... the case is still active. I discovered that State Farm has appealed the jury verdict to the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals. The parties have filed their initial briefs, and oral argument is set for July 19. Unfortunately, PDFs of the briefs are not available online, so I don't know what the basis for the appeal is. My guess is that State Farm is appealing, among other things, the size of the punitive damages award. Their argument would be that the punitive damages are more than X times the compensatory damages, which violates due process. The US Supreme Court made such a ruling a few years ago in BMW v. Somebody, probably Gore.

Order of events:

1) driving down road, make eye contact with man in van waiting at stop sign
2) man looks opposite direction from me, then pulls out and T-bones me
3) we egress from our respective vehicles and ask if either party is injured
4) man says "why didn't you stop?"
5) I reply "because I didn't have a stop sign."
6) he replies: "I'm from Tijuana"
7) he hops in his van and drives away, calling my tienneman style bluff
8) incident reported to police, includes four digits of man's baja license plate number, witnesses

Phase 2:

9) I call state farm and explain situation...

10) state farm informs me that I'm on the hook for a collision deductible 11) I ask if the uninsured motorist coverage applies (zero deductible policy) 12) Response: If you can positively identify the vehicle and driver, then prove he doesn't have insurance, it will 13) I reply: " So the ' I'm from tijuana ' —corroborated by the Baja plate, followed by the attempt to run me over while leaving the scene forces us to assume that the man is insured unless proven otherwise?" 14) "Yeah, I think they're changing that law in a couple of years, but for now that's how it works" So, either: 1) California law is really beneficial to insurance companies in this case 2) State farm is trying to convince its customers it is not responsible for coverage because California law is really beneficial to insurance companies in this case.

Just thought I'd share this tale of pleasure to see if there was any agreement about which of the last 2 observations was correct.

-Mike

— BEN POPKEN

Today they've got a face-palm easy post on saving money on insurance rates. The secret insider tip... is to call all the providers and find the best quote.

Geico: 1-800-861-8380
State Farm: 1-877-734-2265
Allstate: 1-877-572-5268
Progressive: 1-800-776-4737
AAA: 1-877-323-4222

The blog says the best way to get a good price is not to ask, "Is that a good price?" but, "What other discounts do you have?"

State Farm, you a bitch.

Previously:
• Update: State Farm Isn't All There
• State Farm Isn't All There

So I already hate Reader Ian a bit for falling on the right side of State Farm's cerebralist dichotomy of insurer prejudice. Still, all's right in the world, because if there's one thing for certain, it's that State Farm eventually bones all people equally.

Six months after qualifying for a 'good student' discount, Ian found his insurance bill jump up by $80. "Recalculated premiums," said State Farm: vague justifications are the lingua franca of insurance agencies, after all. Ian accepted it, with only a thin rope of blood trickling from his teeth-pierced nether lip.

But then, a few months later, State Farm revoked his 'good student' discount. Seems he'd stopped being a student: this made him a stupid slacker like me, and liable to pay an extra $250, with nothing to do about it except go for his PhD. The nether lip began to spray gore like a firehose.

Ian's email, after the jump.

About a year ago I purchased a new car and a new car insurance policy from State Farm to go with it. As a male under the age of 25 living in a large metropolitan area (DC), said policy was, naturally, a complete freaking rip-off (despite my squeaky clean driving record), but State Farm was still cheaper than pretty much anyone else. Though I was no longer a student, I was a recent graduate and therefore eligible for a pretty substantial good student discount thanks to my 3.96 college GPA (with only a B in Astronomy between me and perfection). I knew there was a benefit to studying! I paid for the first 6 months of insurance up front and proceeded to enjoy my new car.

Six months later I get the bill for the next insurance period, and I notice that it has increased by about $80 despite the fact that I had made no claims. I call my State Farm agent to inquire about the increase and I was informed that they had "reassessed the way they calculate premiums." Frustrating as hell, but there's not much I can do about it. At least I still have that bitchin' good student discount, right? I pay my bill and enjoy another six months of choking on smog and sitting in traffic in my hot ride.

A couple of weeks ago I received a bill for the next billing cycle. This time, they have increased my rates by $250! I call my agent to ask why, despite never ever having filed a claim, they had raised my rates again. They tell me that since I've been out of college for over a year, I'm no longer eligible for that good student discount. My transcripts haven't changed, but I guess I'm dumber now that I'm living in the real world and have all those real world responsibilities such as paying my own bills. I guess I'm just too stupid these days to understand the inherent logic of State Farm's premiums.

So I say screw 'em. I'm switching to Esurance until I move to Portland, OR next month and then I'm selling my car. I'm sick of being hostage to the whims of the insurance and oil industries.

Previously: State Farm Isn't All There

Problem: Rick wasn't in town at the time. Problem: They license number they give isn't his. Problem: They tell Rick to bring his car in for identification or they'll get a warrant.

State Farm's Problem: Rick has a cousin who works in British Intelligence.

Long Story: Inside.

Rick: hey
Rick: have a consumer complaint
fakeout: What's up?
Rick: I got a note over the weekend from State Farm, saying I'd been identified in a "Hit and Run" on "Collingwood Street" in San Francisco on July 29, 2006 with a form asking me for my insurance information. I was not in San Francisco the last week of July and my car was in the parking garage, both copies of the keys were with me. Google Maps shows Collingwood to be on the other side of town.
Rick: so I rang State Farm, talked to a "David" on Team 6, who told me that someone had photographed my plate as "6GCV544", but that the photograph wasn't available, they verified the plate with DMV (however, the plates on my car are "6GCU544") [plate number changed for protection]. The other gentleman has a black Mitsubishi Montero, ,which is evidently an SUV. they then asked me if they could come take a look at my car. I inquired as to why. Their response: "If you don't cooperate, we'll get a warrant"
Rick: I responded, "If you would give me consistent, correct information, I would be happy to cooperate with you. Thus far, you have given me an incorrect license plate, and are now resorting to threats to get me to cooperate. Tell you what, I'll have my mates at Thames House give you a call and you can threaten them. Thank you very much" and I hung up
fakeout: What an aggravation.
Rick: indeed
Rick: but I hope they got the message
fakeout: So you have friends at MI5?
Rick: cousin
Rick: I'm British
fakeout: Wouldn't that be a darling of a call to listen to.
Rick: AT&T will probably record it
fakeout: Well sounds like State Farm really doesn't have their facts straight. Pretty ridiculous.
Rick: no, they don't
Rick: but they still want me to take my car to their office to have them look at it
fakeout: Unfortunate that David will have to die by an exploding umbrella.
Rick: come again?
fakeout: Exploding umbrella... espionage doings...
Rick: Get Smart?
fakeout: In the vein. So wait, they first said they would come to see the car and now they want you to bring it?
Rick: yes
Rick: their story seems to change over the course of a phone conversation
Rick: at the end of the conversation, they said the person photographed me [at the scene]
Rick: I then informed them "if that were indeed the case, it's unique in natural history as I was out of town that whole month on vacation with my family in Europe. If you have a picture of me at the scene, submit it to the Vatican, I could use a sainthood."
fakeout: rodger, well we have about all we need for a satisfactory post
fakeout: closing remarks?
Rick: State Farm really ought to do their homework before sending out rubbish letters like this.

Hoping for more blood, we sent the agent a comments login invite. He declined, saying:

"Thanks, Ben, I'll not continue the debate with you . Just having a little consumer moment myself. I like the word "extorty" by the way. Creative. Every issue has two sides. Just wanted see how mine might be received. I got the remarks I expected. I read the Peter Lewis thing by the way in Forbes magazine. Does that information discredit him? Didn't mean to disparage him in any way. "

Nice double-back, apparently there's also two sides to every face.

Previously:

• Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There With a Rebuttal
  
• Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There With a Helping Hand and a Hatchet

Today, Mike Sipes, a State Farm agent, wrote in to address that complaint.

Exciting!

We applaud State Farm for taking the time out to take part in the conversation. And for letting us know that the CEO of Progressive Auto Insurance is a marijuana proponent.

All the dope, after the jump...

State Farm was going to raise Harry's housing deductible by 150% as he only had a single line of insurance with them. His agent helped him figure out that if he opened a minimum savings account with State Farm and put $100 in it, then he could have multiple lines with State Farm and avoid the hike. Harry bristled at the idea but went through with it.

Mike writes:

"A gentleman named Harry recently made a comment about being "extorted" by State Farm to purchase another product from State Farm to keep his deductible low as he was a one line customer. This was a Feb. 23, 2006 posting. Your comment was, "Way to go, Harry." Well,... 1. Putting $100 in a bank account hardly qualifies for extortion money. It is still Harry's money and he is being paid to have it there. It is called "saving money". Great rates for savings by the way.

It is also still money that State Farm gets to use. Harry was mainly joking by calling it extortion.

"2. Progressive, led by marijuana proponent Peter Lewis, and Geico, a Berkshire Hathway company, are in the more profitable auto insurance trade because they have no expertise or the stomach for the homeowners business which is mauled by catastrophic weather and flavor of the month trendy losses such as dreaded black mold. State Farm is most likely saying that they supply local personal service beyond what these companies offer and find a little problem in being these companies homeowner insurance provider.

3. The deductible of 1% on his home is $2600 because of the worth of his home. The homeowners in Fla. and Texas would love a deductible that low. The choice is affordable insurance to protect against catatrophe, or no insurance available which puts the ability to own a home through mortgage a dream. You must have insurance to protect collatteral, i.e. your home.

4. The need is for everyone to work together to stem the upward pressure on the cost of homeowners insurance instead of always making the insurer the bad guy because he is the messenger.

Mike Sipes
Graham, Texas
State Farm agent

Good points, Mike, thanks for writing in. But nowhere do you address the understandable frustration that Harry felt. Also, you can look it one way and see how, in coughing $100 to avoid an injurious rate increase, Harry is paying to avoid pain. While not extortion, it feels "extorty," it exhibits "extortiness." See also L_Emmerdeur's excellent question in the original post about monopolistic tying practices.

Previously: Like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There With a Helping Hand and a Hatchet

State Farm was going to raise his housing deductible by 150% as he only had a single line of insurance with them. Thinking quick, Harry figured out how to side-step the rate hike without switching over his Progressive car insurance as well, though not without paying a price...

Full story after the jump...

I got a post card from my State Farm agent the other day. It said, "Please call us about a matter concerning your homeowner's insurance." I spoke to a very nice lady at the agent's office who told me that State Farm was going to be instituting a change in my policy when it came up for renewal next June. This change only affected "single line" insureds, in other words, people who only used one of State Farm's insurance lines. Personally, I use Progressive to insure my car, and State Farm on my house, because, well, I did the math and it was cheaper than having State Farm insure my cars.

The change which is going to affect single line insureds (at least those of us in Missouri) is that, instead of our current deductible (mine is $1000), SF would increase our deductible to one percent of the value of the property. Thus, my deductible would be increased to, approximately $2600. I would get the "benefit" of an approximately $100 decrease in my yearly premium.

"Wow," I said to the agent. "That's a big increase in potential out-of-pocket. If I had two unrelated losses in one year, we're up over $5,000."

"Yes," she said. "But you could keep the $1000 deductible if you weren't a single line insured."
"I'm pretty happy with my auto insurer. What other lines does SF have?"
"We have life insurance, health insurance and we have several investment vehicles that would count as another line."
"Investment vehicles?
"Yes. We have money market funds, mutual funds, even a savings account."
"Okay," I said, (and here's where the Consumerist Cynic in me began to blossom), "if I'm the cheapest S.O.B on the planet, and I didn't want to bother switching insurance companies, what would you suggest I do?"
"Our savings account has a minimum balance of $100. If you opened one of those, it would be sufficient for you to be considered as a multiple-line insured."

"I see. So basically, I pay State Farm $100, and they don't unilaterally increase my deductible by over 150 percent. Fine. Please go ahead and set me up for a savings account, mail me the application, and just let me know where I need to send the extortion money."

I want to clarify that I actually appreciate that my agent gave me the heads up on this. It's State Farm corporate which came up with this great money-saving / money-making idea.

But me, calling it extortion, that's the Consumerist in me talking.

-Harry

Good job, Harry!