IBJNews

State Farm must pay Fishers contractor $14.5M, court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a $14.5 million award of damages against State Farm Insurance to a Fishers-based construction firm.

The award is one of the largest defamation awards in U.S. history, according to the court.

Joseph Radcliff and his company, Coastal Property Management LLC, were awarded the damages by a jury in mid-2011after a six-week trial in Hamilton County.

Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm initially sued Radcliff and his company, which does business as CPM Construction of Indiana, in 2008, accusing him of racketeering and insurance fraud. The court found the suits were initiated after State Farm received bad press for denying homeowners’ claims for hail damage following a spring storm in central Indiana in 2006. Radcliff helped homeowners fight State Farm for coverage.

Radcliff filed a counterclaim, alleging defamation against the insurer.

The appeals court found the insurer couldn’t prove three arguments it made in an attempt to reverse the judgment.

State Farm claimed that its communications with the National Insurance Crime Bureau and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department – which investigated claims made by State Farm against Radcliff that he created damage on customers’ roofs – were protected by statutory immunity and a common-law privilege for crime reporting; that Radcliff failed to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; and that the damages award was excessive.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Time to rename the company
    I bet State Farm will say they are dissapointed just like they did in their loss in Mississippi 2 days ago when a jury found State Farm committed fraud. Interesting that State Farm was claiming fraud in this case and lost, but got caught for fraud in Mississippi. Maybe they should change their name to STATE FRAUD as it seems to fit. This is just the tip of the iceberg for the executives of this company.
  • State Farm
    Look what they did to the good people of LA, MISS after Katrina. Same thing. A good neighbor...really????
  • Good Grief...
    Where was this company when I was unsuccessfully fighting State Farm for that same hail damage? They finally conceded and replaces ONE-QUARTER of my roof. WHAT??? Yes, one-quarter of the roof, I had to pay thousands to have the rest redone on my own...
  • Hey, Aaron Rogers!
    What happened to my "discount double check". everyone sing along..."like a good neighbor"
  • rates
    good for him .....although I suppose State Farm is going to up our rates AGAIN to recoup this

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT