Template:Did you know nominations/State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SoWhy 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby[edit]
- ... that a recent United States Supreme Court case began when insurance adjustors claimed they were instructed to falsely categorize damages after Hurricane Katrina? Source: "According to respondents, petitioner instructed them and other adjusters to misclassify wind damage as flood damage in order to shift petitioner’s insurance liability to the Government." (See page three of the slip opinion)
- ALT1:... that according to Nina Totenberg, a recent United States Supreme Court case was the "first of many" lawsuits alleging that a major insurance company manipulated reports to evade responsibility? Source: "This was the first of many such claims against State Farm, and last year, Mississippi sued the company, saying the state had paid more than $522 million to State Farm policyholders after the company evaded its responsibility by manipulating the reports of its own adjusters and engineers." (Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Upholds Hurricane Katrina Fraud Verdict Against State Farm, Nat. Pub. Radio (Dec. 6, 2016))
- QPQ: Michael Vlap
- Comment: I know the primary hook is a bit verbose, and I am open to suggests for re-phrasing from my learned colleagues
Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. I prefer ALT0 to ALT1. The hook facts for ALT0 are cited inline and the article is neutral. The article is clear and written in legal terminology. I am unable to assess whether there are any copyright or close paraphrasing issues involved, but I doubt it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
