$9 million awarded in State Farm case

After 22 years of fighting State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a Cache County woman has been awarded more than $9 million by the Utah Supreme Court, which denounced the company's conduct as "egregious."

The opinion in the landmark case released Friday involves Curtis and Inez Campbell, who sued State Farm for acting in bad faith after the company would not settle claims resulting from a 1981 accident in Sardine Canyon that killed one man and left another disabled.

In a narrow sense, the legal battle involves the $145 million in punitive damages that was originally awarded to the couple by a jury — the largest such award in Utah's history.

But Rich Humpherys, attorney for the Campbells, said money was never the issue for the couple. Instead, the long-standing battle was about getting justice for what Humpherys termed the terrible way State Farm treated the pair.

"Mrs. Campbell has always stated from the beginning the money is not important to her, and I've heard Mr. Campbell, who has passed away, say the same thing. Both of their desires was to disclose the wrongful practices of State Farm so the public at large would know what's going on," Humpherys said.

"She is especially pleased with the recognition that State Farm's conduct toward the Campbells was callous and deceitful, and that vigorous deterrence is needed to prevent State Farm from treating other Utah customers the same way," he said.

"As the (Utah) Supreme Court mentioned, even after the jury found the insurance company guilty of fraud, bad faith and intentionally inflicting severe emotional distress on the Campbells, State Farm remained defiant, never apologizing or expressing any remorse," which is contrary to Utah values and traditions, Humpherys said.

If State Farm does not appeal the case further, the $9 million will be divided equally among Inez Campbell, Curtis Campbell's estate, the parents of the man who died and the disabled individual, according to Humpherys.

State Farm spokeswoman Maria Taylor said no decision had been made as to what action the firm will take next.

"The case involves important questions of constitutional law. We're reviewing today's ruling in light of the clear guidelines handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court of April of last year, and we're just going to need some time to review the decision in detail," Taylor said.

"The case involves a decision many years ago to defend a lawsuit against one of our policyholders. We adopted measures a long time ago in response to issues that came up to help us better serve our customers," Taylor said.