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.
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!