|
|
|
Farmers Insurance Settles Class Action Lawsuit
Topics |
2011/12/02 10:05
|
Farmers Insurance entered into a settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit, In Re Farmers Med-Pay Litigation, pending in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The settlement includes Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers Group, Inc., Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and certain related entities. The Court entered a final order approving the settlement on November 29, 2011.
Plaintiffs alleged that Farmers failed to pay reasonable expenses for necessary medical services related to automobile accidents under Medical Payments and Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage in automobile policies based on Farmers' use of certain claim adjustment systems and procedures. Farmers denies all of Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit. However, Farmers agreed to resolve the lawsuit to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation.
The Settlement Class includes all persons who submitted claims for payment of medical bills related to an automobile accident under Med-pay or PIP coverage if (a) the claim was adjusted from January 1, 2001 to February 9, 2009 based upon a recommended reduction from Zurich Services Corporation (ZSC), (b) the claim was paid at less than the amount billed, and (c) total Med-pay or PIP payments were less than the respective limits of coverage. The Class also includes medical providers who were assigned the right to assert these claims.
Those affected by this settlement must complete and submit a valid claim form postmarked no later than December 29, 2011. Further information and claim forms can be obtained by visiting www.MedpayClaimsAdministration.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accused White House shooter to appear in DC court
Topics |
2011/11/21 09:22
|
A man accused of firing an assault rifle at the White House is expected to appear in court in Washington.
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez is scheduled to appear in federal court Monday at 1:45 p.m.
Ortega was arrested last week in Pennsylvania. The Idaho Falls, Idaho, resident is accused of driving by the White House on the evening of Nov. 11 and firing at the White House from his vehicle. Authorities say one of the rounds he fired cracked a window of the first family's living quarters.
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama were away, and no one was injured. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY federal appeals court reverses Bruno conviction
Topics |
2011/11/17 09:39
|
A federal appeals court has tossed out the conviction of a former Republican leader of the New York Senate.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the conviction of Joseph Bruno.
He was convicted in 2009 of denying taxpayers honest services by concealing a deal with a business associate who paid him as a consultant.
It was expected that the 2nd Circuit would reverse the conviction after the U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled in the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling. The Supreme Court found that federal statutes used to fight white-collar and public official fraud only criminalize schemes with proof of bribes or kickbacks.
The 2nd Circuit agreed to return the case to the lower court in Albany, where prosecutors can seek a superseding indictment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices unlikely to have last word on health care
Topics |
2011/11/15 08:54
|
President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul divided the nation from the day he signed it into law, and that seems unlikely to change no matter how the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.
Some legal disputes, like the 2008 presidential election, the court can settle. Others rage on, such as abortion. It may take another decade to find the balance between private and public responsibility for health care in America, a nation disdainful of big government yet historically unable to guarantee affordable basic coverage to its citizens.
Either way it rules, the Supreme Court decision will not end the debate on health care, said former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an influential Democratic adviser. It is, and will largely remain, a debate on the role of government.
The Supreme Court's announcement on Monday that it will take up the constitutional challenge to what Republicans deride as Obamacare, sets the stage for a decision next summer in the heat of the presidential election campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Govt asks justices to stay out of immigration case
Topics |
2011/11/11 09:35
|
The Justice Department on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a lawsuit involving Arizona's immigration law, saying lower courts properly blocked tough provisions targeting illegal immigrants.
The state law is a challenge to federal policy and is designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, the department's solicitor general said in a filing with the justices. Arizona says the law is an effort to cooperate with the federal government.
One provision requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally. In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of that and other key provisions in the Arizona law.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to overturn the judge's decision and wants Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that the issues are of compelling, nationwide importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif high court hears debate over worker breaks
Topics |
2011/11/09 08:56
|
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion.
The case was initially filed eight years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by chain restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.
The case has generated immense interest among labor-law lawyers and a variety of industries grappling with defining responsibilities for meal and rest periods.
Lawyers for the workers argue that not ordering the breaks is a passive way to take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues at busy times.
Brinker's attorney countered that requiring businesses to control the breaks of workers is unmanageable and that taking such breaks should be left to the discretion of employees.
The court's decision is due in 90 days, with the resolution possibly worth millions of dollars to lawyers and companies enmeshed in class-action lawsuits hinging on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
