BY: JAKE YEATER, The Mike Morse Law Firm, Southfield
In the great State of Michigan (and presumably across the country), State Farm is known to have two personalities. To the public, State Farm asserts that it’s a “good neighbor” and advertises that State Farm customers will be covered if they’re involved in a car accident. Ask any average Joe or Jane in the community—they reasonably expect that State Farm will just pay for their medical bills if they’re hurt in a collision.
However, the Michigan legal community—and the State Farm customers who ultimately make claims for benefits—see a whole different neighbor. During a typical claim or lawsuit with State Farm, many State Farm customers will see an early termination of benefits, extravagant investigations into their claim, their families and doctors will be deposed in marathon discovery depositions, unreasonably low settlement offers will be made, and (more likely than not) they will be exposed to the risks of a trial—and being stuck with a mountain of medical bills if they happen to lose.
For years, many have wondered why State Farm takes such an aggressive stance in the legal world. Finally, the reason has been released to the public.
It’s really no secret that McKinsey & Company (a high-end consulting firm) sold a program to State Farm back in the ‘90s to overhaul its claims operations.2 The program was called Advancing Claims Excellence (ACE) and it was rolled out nationwide. Presently, however, whenever questions are asked about this program, State Farm would typically respond with “the program is obsolete,” “that was back in the ‘90s,” “we don’t use that program anymore.” Simply, the program is irrelevant. Recently, the Mike Morse Law Firm determined this to be far from the truth.
We first requested the “ACE documents” in discovery during November of 2013. State Farm vigorously defended producing the documents (citing every legal objection in the book—irrelevant, too burdensome to produce, work product, trade secrets, etc.). After citing numerous federal court opinions finding the documents to be discoverable and relevant, over 77,000 internal documents were ordered to be produced, albeit under a protective order.
On August 6, 2014, an Oakland County Circuit Court Judge conducted an in camera review of a summation of the documents and held that the public had a right to know the contents of Michigan ACE documents. The protective order was finally lifted.
As a preliminary matter, it was clearly noted in memoranda contained within the documents that State Farm realized the ACE program became an issue after it was brought up in a trial in Arizona.3 After the trial, State Farm ordered a mass collection of any and all information concerning the ACE program.4 Other internal memoranda noted that many documents were being destroyed by State Farm employees leaving considerable gaps in piecing together the program and its directives.5 Other memorandums and emails established that employees were ordered to destroy documents and other training materials.6 Therefore, the program is not complete, one can only speculate as to what was destroyed.7
After many man-hours of parsing through the 24 brim-filled banker boxes of Bates-stamped documents, it was learned that the ACE Program performed a “look back” on 244 closed State Farm files. The closed files were basically fly-specked to learn how State Farm could save more money. What did State Farm learn after the look back? It became very apparent that the focus was on Defense Medical Examinations:
- [G]et early IME and shut down ongoing income loss claim.8
- [E]arlier scheduling of IME…would have resulted in shortfall for earlier suspension.9
- We should have ordered all records, including prior records…and got an early IME.10
- One good, early IME with complete pre- and post accident records sent to IME doctor and the correct questions being asked about actual physical impairments should have ended this ongoing claim within 4 months.11
- The IME should have been done very early…12
- Should have done IME mid Jan[uary]…allowed 4 mos [of therapy] (generously)…again generously.13
- Instead of paying for more rehab we should have obtained an IME.14
- Would have done IME/gotten strong [unintelligible] to return to her job….15
- Should have obtained IME as soon as 2nd P.T. began.16
- If IME/record review would have addressed necessity, then would have closed much sooner.17
- [G]ood use of record/peer review which resulted in a significant savings.18
- The IME will be used as a tool to settle PIP claims before suit is filed.19
- Request IMEs proactively.20
- The IME will be used as a tool to settle PIP claims before suit is filed.21
- Give defense counsel input on what IME doctor to use, what records to supply to the doctor, and what issues the doctor needs to address.22
- Request IMEs more often and sooner in the treatment.23
- Timing for requests of IMEs or record reviews for questions of necessity were usually too late to be effective.24
- Set up IMEs more quickly.25
- Limited to no direction given to IME providers by claim people of defense attorneys.26
What’s new, right? Anyone who has any experience in the field of personal injury knows that insurance companies hire doctors for an “independent” opinion. But here’s something to think about. After the look-back was performed, it was determined that DMEs were only used 43% of the time before the ACE program. It was repeatedly noted that the DMEs were “not used enough” in handling the claim and should have been requested much “sooner” and “earlier” in the treatment.
A summation of the “look back” was created.27 It concluded that there “is a need to increase the level of meeting Medical Management objectives…” in Michigan.28 Specifically, 87% of the 244 closed claims did not meet “Medical Management objectives.” Id. It was noted that, of the 244 files, 84% of them did not secure a “timely” DME.29 In addition, of the 43% of files where DMEs were requested, 67% of the time, the DMEs were not used “appropriately” when handling the claim.30 Claims representatives were then trained “that IME’s be obtained early in the handling of a claim file,” regardless of the amount outstanding, because “We need to take a stand!”31 Charts and graphs were created to show how this could all help save State Farm money.32
After this look back, it was concluded through the ACE Program that not properly using DMEs accounted for 56% of the $30,000,000 State Farm could have saved in Michigan.
The ACE program also differentiated between “active involvement” and “inactive” or “reactive” involvement in handling claims. Active involvement was defined as: “aggressively” gathering information, while inactive involvement was defined as “paying bills only….”33 It was concluded that “active involvement” in the claim would cut pay-out in half.34
It was clear to corporate State Farm that significant money could be saved by more negative DMEs.
Before actually using any of the ACE documents in its State Farm cases, the Mike Morse Law Firm began conducting depositions of State Farm claims representatives on a routine basis to determine exactly how “obsolete” the ACE Program was and to find out how the program continues until the present day. The results were astonishing.
After a countless number of depositions of State Farm employees (who are extensively trained on how to answer questions during depositions—and, based on some evidence, to be evasive during depositions35), common testimony was procured from each adjuster. To summarize, the State Farm Adjuster is trained to:
- Gather as many facts as possible as soon as possible during the initial contact, directly from the customer—before an attorney can be obtained.36
- If any of the facts later change at all, place the claim “under investigation” and withhold benefits.37 If there is any question of a pre-existing condition, place the claim under investigation and get the records to a DME doctor.38
- Send the entire file to the defense medical examiner through a State Farm approved vendor.39
- The medical examiner will provide a negative report for State Farm a vast majority of the time.40
- Terminate benefits based on the DME report, citing the “entirety of the file” as a blanket reason to allow wiggle room during a deposition.
- Testify that the DME doctor is more “independent” because that doctor had “more information” than the treating doctors (because State Farm has virtually infinite resources available to purchase medical records and provide them to the DME doctor).
- Almost every single State Farm claims representative attested that all benefits were paid in accordance with the DME doctor’s recommendations.
Based on the ACE protocol, the following was also learned from numerous State Farm adjusters:
- One State Farm adjuster testified that 80-90% of his claims have a DME involved.41 He knew that the vast majority of DMEs recommended less treatment then treating doctors.42 Lawsuits are filed on approximately 60-70% of his claims.43
- Another adjuster testified that the only thing he did to “investigate” the customer’s medical condition was order all the records possible, and send the customer (with the records) to the DME.44 He was asked about the percentage of his claims where DMEs have been conducted, he testified that “[e]ighty-five percent, that sounds about right.”45 He confirmed that a “vast majority” of the time, he would pay in accordance with the DME doctor’s recommendations and disregard the treating doctor’s opinions.46 Very rarely, if ever, has this adjuster ever disregarded a DME doctor’s opinions for the treating doctor’s opinions.47 Finally, approximately 75% of his claims result in a lawsuit.48
- Another adjuster has a 50-60% DME request rate and she always pays in accordance with the DME doctor’s recommendations for benefits.49 She also attempts to obtain a DME sooner in the treatment, rather than later.50 She considers disc herniations to be considered a “soft tissue,” sprain/strain injury that should resolve in four to six weeks.51 If it does not resolve within that time frame, then a DME is requested.52
- Another adjuster attested to an 85% DME request rate.53 If an injury does not resolve within 4-6 weeks, an DME will be requested.54 Lawsuits are filed on his claims 60-75% of the time.55
- Another adjuster has an 85-90% DME request rate.56 If the individual has a “soft tissue” injury that does not resolve in 6-8 weeks, that individual is sent for an DME.57 Of Mr. Hughes' claims—85% of them are “soft tissue” and are sent DMEs within that time frame.58
- One State Farm adjuster testified that she received training within the past five years as to how to place a claim “under investigation.”59 She was trained that if the facts later change at all from the initial contact, then she can place the claim under investigation for as long as she needs to answer all her questions.60 She was specifically trained to never disregard DME doctor’s opinions and always listens to the DME over treating doctors.61 Notably, she was trained by State Farm that, if there is any question regarding a customer’s medical treatment, to place the claim “under investigation,” order all the medical records, and simply send them to a DME.62
During 1995, a memorandum was sent to State Farm’s Michigan Management Team before the ACE Program was implemented congratulating management that the “complaint ratio decreased nearly 9 percent in 1995.”63 Further, “In today’s competitive environment, it is reassuring to see that our complaint ratio continues to decline.”64 After the ACE program was initiated, another memorandum clearly identified that, with “more IMEs…being requested”, it was “generating more challenges in the form of complaints or lawsuits.65 Clearly, the ACE Program drastically increased the complaint ratio.
State Farm will likely argue that this DME process was intended to prevent fraudulent claims from being presented. However, according to an article published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation:
The rate of fraud of any kind in auto insurance claims for treatment benefits (personal injury protection coverage) was estimated to be 6% for 2007.66 [Emphasis added.]
If the fraud rate is 6%, then why are DMEs being requested between 60% and 90% of the time? The numbers clearly show that fraud is not the reason for the high percentage of DMEs. State Farm is forcing claims into litigation (or hoping that the customer will simply drop the claim and go away).
One very interesting ACE document states that there was a “lack of IME providers” and that there needed to be “set standards for IMEs/usage.”67 Also that a method was identified to “[s]et up our own IME’s – not defense counsel.”68 “Limited to no direction given to IME providers by the claim people of defense attorneys.”69
During the many depositions of State Farm representatives, including front line adjusters, complex claims unit members, assigned claims unit members, and even team managers, one surprising fact came to light. Every time a DME is requested, the adjuster must select the vendor from a State Farm “approved” list. Not one adjuster knew how the vendors were selected for the list, and not one adjuster knew how the vendor selected the doctor. Not even the team managers knew the process. Simply, the adjuster would call the vendor, tell them the specialty needed (i.e., orthopedic surgeon, pain management, etc.), the location of the customer, and the vendor would do the rest. The vendor would select the doctor, provide the space and the overhead for the examination, and send the report back to State Farm.
Each adjuster testified that this process was independent as the vendor and the doctor were independent from State Farm.
Exam Works, and its subsidiary, MES Solutions, are nationwide “vendors” that have been approved by State Farm to facilitate “independent” medical examinations. Based on deposition testimony (and our firms own records), these vendors are used a majority of the time by State Farm.
Interestingly, when the Mike Morse Law Firm began requesting depositions of MES employees, State Farm stepped in, objected to the depositions, and moved to quash the subpoenas. After many deposition cancellations and motions (three to be exact), a representative of MES Solutions was finally produced for a deposition. This corporate representative was very hesitant to give up any information regarding the workings of MES Solutions, but some interesting facts were learned. Specifically, MES Solutions has a one-page list of doctors that it advertises to insurance companies.70 How extensive is the list? Well, it only ranges from 20-40 doctors for all specialties.71 That’s it. She testified that it really has not changed over the past 3 years.72
Also, MES Solutions has a “quality assurance” department. After the doctor dictates his or her findings, the “quality assurance” department makes sure the report complies with the wants and needs of the insurance companies. Although MES Solutions would never admit to changing the content of the reports, one “independent” medical examiner (Stanley Lee, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon) specifically testified as follows:
Q. So, as we sit here today, then, there’s never been any discussion with anybody [at Exam Works or MES Solutions] that you work for regarding the content of your reports, meaning, which way you’re leaning in your reports or which benefits you’re recommending versus not recommending? There’s been no discussions of that nature?
A. There may have been discussions but I don’t recall the specifics of them. * * *73.
A. Sometimes the [clients/insurance companies] may not have been fully satisfied with the services, and that's very important to me. So, they'll feed that back to me and we'll discuss how to best address it and how to address the situation. Client satisfaction is very important to me.
Q. Who is the last client that you can recall being dissatisfied with you?
A. There's been noise here and there on the percentage of income, for instance. I don't remember which client. It seems like they all hear it at once. It's not that big of a community. The percentage of income has come up. There's been a statement that I've made in a previous deposition that I stated that MES sells medical opinions. * * * MES is in the business of providing objective opinions. They sell things. They're in the business to make revenues.74
The vendor also provided this doctor “guidance” on how depositions work, the questions that would be asked, etc.75 When asked how the vendor evaluated the doctor’s performance, he attested that “I guess I’m always on probation as an independent contractor. If I don’t do well, I’m out.”76
How does Dr. Lee make the client happy? He testified that 90% of his time is spent performing DMEs for insurance companies like State Farm.77 Dr. Lee made “just under a million dollars” during 2013 alone, 90% of which is from DMEs.78
Unbelievably, 90-95% of the time, he finds absolutely nothing wrong with the State Farm customer when he performs DMEs.79 In fact, the doctor testified that when he dictates his reports, he merely dictates “please insert the macros” for his normal examination.80 Most, if not all, of his reports are “template,” meaning that 90% of his reports will read the exact same way.81
Only 2-5% of the time does he ever recommend surgeries or injections.82 He only feels MRIs are needed if surgeries or injections are going to be conducted.83 He never feels EMGs are necessary.84 He never feels chiropractic treatment is necessary.85 When asked what feedback and reviews he was receiving from the vendors and insurance companies regarding his performance, he attested:
A. No. No news is good news in my mind. And the business keeps coming in, so that's kind of my indication that the market is approving of what I'm doing.86
Anyone who has ever cross examined a seasoned “independent” medical examiner knows that not much information can be obtained regarding their percentages of favorable versus unfavorable reports. In fact, most of the seasoned DME doctors are almost impenetrable on most subjects. Simply, State Farm has stacked the deck.
Clearly, if a State Farm insured is sent to a doctor like this, benefits will be terminated, forcing the customer to sue State Farm.
Delay and Negotiation Tactics
State Farm claims representatives were specifically trained that “Time, time, time is on our side, yes it is. – Rolling Stones.”87 Defined by State Farm to be “time tactics,” claims representatives were trained that “[m]ost claims do not get better with age like fine wine.”88 This was especially noted to be true for children.89 If a customer continues to treat, then “something else is going on, i.e., malingering or other mental health issues.”90
Regarding negotiations, adjusters were specifically trained to “always lowball because you’re never sure what a plaintiff might accept.”91 They were trained to “pass the buck,” by being untruthful and saying they have no more authority and management will never give them more.92 Also, they were trained to always ask that the customer waive his or her future ability to claim medical treatment from State Farm as part of the settlement.93 The training was summarized for State Farm adjusters as follows:
Hidden Agenda Tactics:
Several ACE documents produced in Colorado were very telling on how State Farm operates (which is apparent in Michigan). During a “negotiation improvement initiative,” State Farm claims representatives received training that the “first offer should be at the bottom of the range”94 and that they “need to be slower to settle.”95 State Farm claims representatives were trained to “treat claim as if it is [the adjuster’s] money.”96 Notably, one of the “problems common to all divisions” was that “Claim reps are advocates for the claimant.”97
These tactics routinely force the claim into litigation.
Aggressive Defense During Litigation
According to what was gleaned from the ACE documents, once the matter is forced into litigation, then State Farm will pass the file to aggressive defense counsel. Per the ACE documents, it was recognized that “[t]he defense attorneys to some degree seemed reluctant in their aggressiveness in the files.”98 So additional concepts and initiatives were implemented by the ACE program as follows:
- Find new defense counsel that will take PIP to trial.99
- Need to try more cases.100
- Need to be more aggressive defending PIP lawsuits.101
- We must be more willing to fight for what is right even if we may not have all of the necessary proof on our side…and if that can’t be understood and accepted [customers] must find another insurance company.102 [Emphasis added.]
- Do we owe every claim? NO! Do we always pay the amount claimed? NO!103
- Need to try more cases (PIP and BI)104
- Need to be more aggressive defending PIP lawsuits, and hire defense counsel who want to defend PIP lawsuits.105
- [E]arly contact helps us develop solid investigation and build our defenses….106 [Emphasis added.]
- Develop and implement consistent region-wide philosophy or parameters on trying cases.
- Empower our claim force to lose as well as win in trying cases.107
- Empower claim reps and claim management to question or fire defense counsel. (control what defense counsel does).108
- Early results would indicate that a great deal of work still needs to be done in controlling the activities of defense counsel….109
Putting the pieces together, the ACE Program established a claims handling protocol with one intention in mind—engage in delay tactics and force the claim into litigation by use of a DME doctor known to give conservative opinions.
Once the claim is forced into litigation, State Farm will only hire “aggressive” defense counsel that will force the claim to settle cheap, or force the State Farm customer to risk a trial. If the insured customer is forced into trial, then the adjuster can easily take the stand, clearly exclaim that the “independent” medical examiner is more reliable, and the customer can do nothing to establish the link between State Farm and the vendor.
However, with the successful release of these documents, State Farm customers can now combat this predetermined claims handling protocol by showing these documents to the jury and relating the ACE protocol to the actions of the claims representative. Further, new claims may now be asserted against State Farm (depending on state law), including extra-contractual claims such as bad faith, fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
State Farm will undoubtedly still assert that it no longer uses the ACE Program, however, no documents have ever been produced to in any way indicate State Farm terminated the program. Instead, the following has already been found:
“State Farm produced an “article from the Spring 1999 edition of Claims Quarterly written by Frank Haines.” In the article, the author addresses the hypothetical question: “Where do we go from here now that ACE has been completed?” He proposes the following answer: “We may no longer use the term ACE, but quality in our claim operations is still our responsibility.” Id. “ACE provided a foundation”... and its assessment approach forms “the basis for our evaluation method now known as Quality Reviews.”
* * *
“It appears that the ACE assessment approach continues to influence State Farm's corporate culture. And, this culture is relevant to the handling of Barten's claims. Accordingly, the documentation of programs that were informed by or grew out of the original ACE principles is discoverable. See, e.g., Chauvin v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2011 WL 1810625 (ED Mich 2011) (ACE documents were relevant on the issues of “adjusting practices, reasons for denial, and the decision making process.”). [Some internal citations omitted.]110
With much hope and optimism, the release of the Michigan ACE documents will help change the ways of the mighty State Farm—and ensure that State Farm customers receive the benefits they were promised.
1. Jake Yeater, an associate attorney at the Mike Morse Law Firm, specializes in cases dealing with State Farm and other insurance companies and the corresponding Defense Medical Examination facilities. For a copy of the ACE documents, motion, transcripts, etc., contact MAJ at (517) 321-3073.
2. In fact, similar programs were sold to Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and USAA. See http://justice.org/resources/AAJ_Report_TenWorstInsuranceCompanies_FINAL.pdf and http://adams.law.ou.edu/olr/articles/vol61/104dulincommentblu4.pdf, Fn 88.
3. ACE Bates #006840.
4. Id. at #006841.
5. Id. at #072360: “I had destroyed most of my ACE stuff prior to this memo coming out.”
6. Samantha Bird Email, State Farm v Campbell, 538 US 408 (2003). In Campbell, the trial court found that State Farm's employees altered the company's records to make Campbell (their insured) appear less culpable. State Farm disregarded the overwhelming likelihood of liability and the near-certain probability that, by taking the case to trial, a judgment in excess of the policy limits would be awarded. State Farm amplified the harm by at first assuring the Campbells their assets would be safe from any verdict and by later telling them, postjudgment, to put a for-sale sign on their house. Id., at 419.
7. State Farm still has a “document retention policy” to this day where State Farm employees are required to destroy documents within a certain period of time—this includes hard copies and electronic documents. Abbott v State Farm, Case No. 11-010927-NI, pages 28-31.
8. ACE Bates #035835.
9. Id. at #036394.
10. Id. at #039048.
11. Id. at #37550.
12. Id. at #036191.
13. Id. at #034209.
14. Id. at #041957.
15. Id. at #041770.
16. Id. at #042042.
17. Id. at #039538.
18. Id. at #034774
19. Id. at #001404.
20. Id. at ##012853, 010997.
21. Id. at #012817.
22. Id. at ##012869, 014688.
23. Id. at ##010642, 001458.
24. Id. at #013750.
25. Id. at #003095.
26. Id. at #073637.
27. Id. at ##005334-005335.
28. Id. at #005336.
29. Id. at #005544.
30. Id. at #005086.
31. Id. at #011158.
32. Id. at #006907.
33. Id. at #073093.
34. Id. at #024716.
35. Declaration of Amy Girod Zuniga in Hammel v State Farm, attesting that “witness consultants” trained State Farm employees how to create “wiggle room” while answering questions for depositions and “to make it as difficult as possible for the insureds’ attorney to learn any meaningful information about the company, its practices, or the insureds’ claim.” Id. at page 9. Any attorney who has ever deposed a State Farm claims representative knows this is still common practice.
36. State Farm Course Outline for Advanced Negotiation Seminar, p. 3.
37. Deposition Transcript of Shannon Trumbell in Berry v State Farm, Case No: 13-3274-NI, pages 76-78, 80, 82.
38. Id. at 109.
39. Id. at 109.
40. Deposition Transcript of Ottawai Hamme, Onyesohu v State Farm, Case No: 13-135189-NO, page 104 (agreeing that a “vast majority” of the DME doctors “recommended less treatment” than the treating doctors.
41. Id. at pages 50-51.
42. Id. at pages 104-108.
43. Id. at pages 71-72.
44. Deposition Transcript of Daniel Smith, Legion v State Farm, Case No: 12-004908-NI, pages 86-87.
45. Id. at pages 56-57.
46. Id. at pages 60, 62, 63.
47. Id. at page 64.
48. Id. at pages 99-101.
49. Deposition Transcript of Ann Rockwell, Hayes v State Farm, Case No: 13-000716-NI, pages 62-63, 65.
50. Id. at pages 62-63, 65.
51. Id. at pages 29, 68, 69.
52. Id. at page 69.
53. Deposition Transcript of Gregory Rothe, Berry v State Farm, Case No: 13-3274-NI, pages 47-48.
54. Id. at pages 57-58.
55. Id. at pages 127-128.
56. Deposition Transcript of Guy Hughes, Thompson v State Farm, Case No: 13-2734-NI, pages 60-61.
57. Id. at pages 65-66.
58. Id. at page 68.
59. Deposition of Shannon Trumbell, Berry v State Farm, Case No: 13-3274-NI, page 76.
60. Id. at pages 77-80.
61. Id. at pages 101-107.
62. Id. at pages 108-109.
63. ACE Bates #002475.
64. Id. at #002475.
65. Id. at #074295.
66. A Systematic Approach to Clinical Determinations of Causation in Symptomatic Spinal Disk Injury Following Motor Vehicle Crash Trauma, Freeman, Michael D., Ph.D., M.P.H., D.C., Centeno, Christopher J., M.D., Kohles, Sean S., Ph.D., Vol. 1, PM&R, Issue 10, 951-956, October 2009, citing http://www.ircweb.org/News/IRC_Fraud_NR.pdf.
67. Id. at #003004.
68. Id. at #001497.
69. Id. at #073728.
70. Deposition Transcript of Lisa Fraser, Onyesohu v State Farm, Case No: 13-135189-NI, pages 59, 61.
71. Id. at 59, 61.
72. Id. at 61.
73. Deposition Transcript of Stanley S. Lee, M.D., Legion v State Farm, Case No: 13-004908-NI, page 30.
74. Id. at pages 59, 61.
75. Id. at pages 43-44.
76. Id. at page 48.
77. Id. at page 11.
78. Id. at pages 62-63.
79. Id. at page 93.
80. Id. at page 76.
81. Id. at pages 76-77.
82. Id. at pages 96-97.
83. Id. at page 72.
84. Id. at page 73.
85. Id. at page 73.
86. Id. at page 48.
87. State Farm Course Outline for Advanced Negotiation Seminar, p. 5
91. Id. at 7.
94. Camus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., El Paso County District Court No. 05CV404 (2006).
98. ACE Bates #013753
99. Id. at ##001458, 001458.
100. Id. at ##009933, 013608.
101. Id. at ##009933, 013608.
102. Id. at #005989.
103. Id. at #006042
104. Id. at ##006082, 006401, 013422.
105. Id. at ##006082, 006401, 013422.
106. Id. at #006290.
107. Id. at #001460.
108. Id. at #001462.
109. Id. at #073640.
110. Barten v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co., 2013 WL 4046700 (D Ariz, June 3, 2013).