State Farm auto-parts trial documents, Illinois
State Farm auto-parts trial documents
Editor's note: The following memos are verbatim copies of State Farm's internal documents that were entered as evidence in the auto-parts class action lawsuit in Marion, Ill. On Oct. 4, a jury found State Farm guilty of breaching its contract with its policyholders and awarded $456 million to the plaintiffs. On Oct. 8, Judge John Speroni ordered State Farm to pay an additional $730 million in damages.
April 10, 1997
MEMO TO: Tom L'Hote
FROM: Bill Hardt
SUBJECT: CAPA Galvanization
Tom, I basically agree with everything that Jack Gillis sets out in his CAPA Update on Galvanization. He does, however, slant the emphasis toward his interest, but in essence everything is accurate.
The only thing I wish to point out is that regardless of the effectiveness of priers versus galvanization, the point is that if an OE [Original Equipment] part is galvanized, and we use an aftermarket part that is primed, there is a difference. We may well say it is like, kind and quality, but the bottom line is that it is not the same.
Another point Jack makes is in regard to some object penetrating the primer on galvanization and exposing the underlying metal to corrosion. I think it is relatively common knowledge that it is much easier to dislodge the primer than it is the galvanization, thus, the protection is not the same in that situation. A good example might be when its necessary for a shop to drill a part. If they drill the galvanizing, the underlying metal is exposed to corrosion just as it would be if there was primer which was drilled through. In that case, the body shop should be spraying a primer coating on the exposed metal to provide the corrosion resistance. In fact, what I am saying is that the collision repair industry uses the primers in reapplying the corrosion resistance when they repair cars, so that it is obviously effective.