- Dashcam video of Lowe's truck crash going viral (7/26/17)
- Former Sikeston DPS director denies knowing about allegations against detective (7/20/17)1
- 49-year-old homicide victim found in Cape (7/20/17)
- Compliance check results in underage citations at four Cape bars (7/19/17)1
- Chaffee City Council fires officer facing criminal charge (7/23/17)1
- At least one Perryville cop disciplined for misconduct (7/20/17)1
- Wreck flips Lowe's truck in Cape (7/25/17)4
- More details emerge in Perryville police-misconduct case (7/21/17)
- Cape homicide victim identified (7/21/17)
- Buffalo Wild Wings to hold fundraiser Wednesday for ailing Cape officer (7/19/17)1
Court hits State Farm with $145 million judgment
SALT LAKE CITY -- The Utah Supreme Court reinstated a $145 million jury award against State Farm for underpaying insurance claims, cheating customers and destroying crucial documents. A lower court found State Farm had even investigated the sex life of a company whistleblower.
The case involved State Farm's refusal to pay $50,000 to settle a claim involving a 1981 Utah car accident that killed one driver and left another driver disabled.
The insurer wouldn't settle even though one of its investigators determined a State Farm policyholder, Curtis Campbell, was at fault for the accident.
Campbell, 83, was found at fault by a trial jury and held liable for $130,000 more than his $50,000 policy limit. State Farm eventually paid all the damages, including Campbell's personal liability, but Campbell still sued, alleging its refusal to settle was part of a companywide scheme to limit payments on claims.
A Utah jury awarded Campbell and his wife $145 million in punitive and $2.6 million in compensatory damages.
Those amounts were later reduced on an appeal to $25 million in punitive damages and $1 million in compensation.
Friday's 4-1 decision by the Utah Supreme Court reinstated the punitive award to $145 million and kept the compensation at $1 million.
Paul Belnap, State Farm's Utah lawyer, said the company was considering its options and could appeal. The company denies any improper dealings.