Company Overview of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada. Its insurance products include general, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, long term care, business, and boat insurance products. The company also offers farm and ranch, flood, motor cycle, personal articles, personal liability umbrella, community organizations, and volcano damage insurance products. It sells its insurance products through agents. In addition, the company provides various banking products comprising checking and interest checking accounts, money market accounts, certificate...
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington, IL 61710-0001
Founded in 1922
Key Executives for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Vice Chairman and Chief Agency & Marketing Officer
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2014.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Key Developments
Dameron Hospital Association Sues State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. for Alleged Failure to Pay Hospital Liens
Apr 15 14
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is the defendant in a lawsuit that claims it has not honored hospital liens for patients treated after motor vehicle accidents. According to the lawsuit, Dameron Hospital Association routinely treats patients who have been injured by third parties. Dameron files a lien in order to recover patient fees from the third party or his insurance carrier. The lawsuit alleges that State Farm failed to pay those liens and now is indebted to Dameron in an amount not less than $9,264. State Farm filed a notice to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The Court Denies State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance's Refusal to Pay Claim Was Vexatious
Dec 16 13
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied an auto insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay claims brought by its insured following the insurer's denial of a claim for coverage of medical expenses arising from an accident. Further development of the factual record was required to determine whether a non-duplication clause precluded coverage and whether the insurer's refusal to pay was vexatious. Tara Baker and her husband maintained auto insurance under a policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. On Dec. 31, 2011, the Bakers and their minor children were involved in an auto accident with a third-party driver who admitted to running a red light, which was confirmed by an eyewitness. The third-party driver was insured by Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co. Allied accepted liability. After State Farm explained to the Bakers a non-duplication clause contained in the medical payments coverage portion of the State Farm policy, the Bakers informed State Farm that they did not intend to forward any medical bills to State Farm. The Bakers reached a settlement with Allied, but later submitted their related medical bills to State Farm. State Farm denied the claim based on the non-duplication clause, and the Bakers sued State Farm for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. State Farm moved for judgment on the pleadings. Factual record found insufficient. The district court found that under applicable Missouri state court precedent, the non-duplication clause was not restricted to situations where the insured sued the third-party driver or otherwise obtained a prior judgment against the driver. Thus, the fact that the Bakers settled with the driver and provided his insurer with a release did not prevent application of the non-duplication clause. The court found, however, that the issue of whether the non-duplication clause applied required further factual development and, accordingly, denied State Farm's related motion for summary judgment. The court similarly held that whether State Farm's refusal to pay was vexatious could not be resolved on the current record, and required further discovery and development of the factual record. Accordingly, State Farm's motion for summary judgment on this claim was also denied.
The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms a District Court's Dismissal of a Putative Class Action Against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co
Nov 25 13
The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a putative class action brought by individuals who were involved in auto accidents with policyholders of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., alleging a failure to provide proper compensation for the loss in value to their vehicles resulting from the accidents. Because the plaintiffs were not in privity of contract with the insurer and no exception to the rule applied, they lacked standing to bring their claims. Individuals who were involved in auto accidents with insureds of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. brought a putative class action against State Farm, alleging State Farm did not properly compensate them for the loss in value their vehicles suffered as a result of those accidents. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Eleventh Circuit declined to address the substantive fairness of State Farm's formula for assessing diminished value damages because the Eleventh Circuit held that Georgia's third-party beneficiary doctrine precluded claims that were, in effect, claims for compensatory damages. In Georgia, the general rule was that a party not in privity of contract could not bring a direct action suit against the liability insurer of the party alleged to have caused damage absent an unsatisfied judgment against the insured, an applicable legislative mandate or as permitted under the policy. Here, it was undisputed the plaintiffs had not secured judgments against the State Farm policyholders who caused the accidents, and the policies did not authorize third parties to file direct actions against State Farm. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' contention that they fit within the 'legislative mandate' exception to the rule, based on Georgia legislation requiring liability insurance for all drivers. The plaintiffs argued that legislation made innocent victims like them beneficiaries under liability policies, thereby conferring on them standing to sue. Under an applicable Georgia appellate court precedent interpreting that legislation, the plaintiffs were entitled only to bring a direct suit seeking declaratory relief or equitable reformation. Accordingly, and after finding no merit to the plaintiffs' remaining arguments, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions