State Farm Fire Casualty v. Joseph Martin Radcliff, et al. - 2/26/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  February 26, 2013 
10:30 AM  EST

10:30 a.m. 29A04-1110-CT-571. Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. On April 14, 2006, central Indiana suffered a hailstorm that caused millions of dollars in property damage and generated thousands of insurance claims.  Following the storm, Joseph Radcliff created Coastal Property Management LLC (CPM) to assist homeowners in identifying storm damage, repairing that damage, and working with insurance companies to pay for repairs.  Many State Farm & Casualty Co. policyholders’ claims were denied, and some of them complained to the Indiana Department of Insurance.  Radcliff was retained by a number of State Farm policyholders.  Two State Farm employees began investigating Radcliff for insurance fraud and forwarded their files to the authorities.  The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against Radcliff, but those charges were later dismissed.

State Farm sued Radcliff and CPM for racketeering and insurance fraud in Hamilton Superior Court.  State Farm alleged that Radcliff, through CPM, had a fraudulent scheme of intentionally damaging homes to simulate hail and wind damage and submitting false insurance claims.  Radcliff and CPM counterclaimed alleging that State Farm defamed Radcliff by falsely accusing him of criminal conduct
 
 In June 2011, after a six-week jury trial at which forty witnesses testified, the jury found in favor of Radcliff and CPM on their defamation counterclaim and awarded them $14.5 million.  After the verdict, State Farm filed a motion to correct errors in which it moved for judgment on the evidence, argued that it was entitled to a new trial under the “Thirteenth Juror Rule,” and argued that the damage award was excessive.  The trial court denied State Farm’s motion.  State Farm now appeals the defamation judgment arguing that its communications were protected by statutory immunity and a common-law qualified privilege for crime reporting, Radcliff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that State Farm acted with actual malice, and the damages are excessive.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT