It may be true that this particular judge gave this particular plaintiff too much lattitude, and there may not in fact be a bad faith claim in this particular case.

That said, Allstate is a well-oiled machine set up for the sole purpose of depriving injured parties of as much compensation as possible, in order to retain as many premiums for itself as it can. There’s no way to truly try a bad-faith claim against Allstate to a jury without letting the jury know the context in which all of this stuff occurs.

Allstate, State Farm and the other insurance companies that deal with injured people not as individuals but as numbers need to be held accountable by juries for this action. Nobody hears about this conduct until they’re hurt and discover they have no one to turn to; until then all they hear is how low the premiums are.

You complain when plaintiff’s attorneys play loose with the law and now you’re complaining when it’s strictly enforced. Basically, you think that whenever a Plaintiff wins the system is failing.

[TF: No, sir: You misread me. The Indiana Supreme Court decision is, as best I can tell, legally correct. I use the neutral phrase “procedural technicality” to distinguish the Court’s actual decision that no appellate jurisdiction existed from a ruling that the plaintiff’s claim had any merit. See, for example, the Washington Post story “Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality.” My complaint is entirely with the trial court and the disingenuousness of the plaintiff and his attorney.]