Insurance Coverage Blog

Thanks to Marjory Morford, Dunn Carney's marketing director, for sending me the link to this story by Mike Kunzelman of the Associated Press.  (Marjory frequently helps me with this blog -- for example, on days where I'm too busy to review and publish comments, she does it.  When I'm traveling and away from a computer, I've been able to call her and dictate posts and updates).   This story completely slipped by me.  It says, following the disqualification of the Katrina(less) Litigation(less) Group(less), some dozen policyholders formerly represented by them have settled their Katrina claims with the insurer. Gotta think some of those policyholders are at least a little miffed at their lawyers.

...or miffed at Judge Senter, who denied them their chosen counsel.

...or maybe they aren't miffed at all. To quote from the article:

"'It's very satisfying,' [one policyholder] said of the settlement. 'I think it turned out for the best.'"

There's bound to be skepticism in this group about whether that plaintiff fared as well as she might have if she'd had a lawyer working for her. But the bottom line is, she's happy. She doesn't seem to feel mistreated. State Farm offered her some money, and she apparently felt like it was an acceptable amount, because she accepted it. Imagine that: someone had a conversation with a State Farm representative and lived to tell about it. Guess some of the snakes over at the farm don't bite.

Well, most down at the farm do bite, or should I say did, until I sicced a good lawyer on them. They sent me a letter saying -0-; went to mediation and they said $45,000. Court date a month away, bingo! They saw the error of their ways.

And nothing against lawyers (I am one, after all), but these policyholders (1) got their money now and (2) didn't have to pay 1/3-1/2 of it to a lawyer.

And yes, I have seen 40-50% contingency fee contracts with Katrina cases. I have also seen 10-15% contingency fee contracts.

Scruggs quoted me 40%. I'm surprised the firm didn't have a lien on these 13 cases.

I want to know where the court filings are that are talked about, because they are not on the docket for McIntosh v State Farm and I am wondering if this is propaganda put out by State Farm.

I love lawyers, but I have to admit that these policyholders appear to have fared much better than they would have with counsel representing them, taking 40 percent (the going minimum) to 50 percent of the proceeds. In fact, it appears that having counsel effectively prevented these policyholders from having a dialogue (in their best interest) with their carrier. A lawyer hoping to ring a big punitive damage bell can be a very effetive barrier between a client who only wants to be made whole and the carrier, simply by counseling the client to hold out for a jackpot. But what if the client only wants a reasonable compromise? If the lawyer has spread sweet pototatoes all over Mississippi, and thinks he has a zillion dollar jackpot on ice, that might explain holding out for the windfall (though it also explains why Dickie is soon to be behind bars) but only that kind of unethical and criminal "access" to the judiciary can explain hold out for 40 percent of a punitive damage jackpot. Even then, building a chinese wall between the client and his carrier looks mighty selfish on the lawyer's part, because he can roll the dice and lose and, in the blink of an eye, move on to a cabinet full of 40 percent files. But the policyholder has one case, and only one. This makes it appears to me that this dozen or so policlyholders did quite well on their own.

The "propaganda" was put out by the Associated Press. BELLE, are you really Oliver Stone in disguise?

"propaganda"

LOL. On my, that's was funny.

Belle's dreams of Snake Farm purgatory are diminishing on a daily basis. Gotta pity the poor girl, sitting around her trailer watching old Jim Hood commercials and stuffing herself with sweet potatoes.

Bull, you do have a name and a location from the news article. Should be fairly easy to find the folks and satisfy your cynicism. If you discover it was not "propaganda", please let us know you were wrong yet again.

Bull, Mr. Ladnier is reported to be the President of the St. Vincent de Paul Pharmacy in Biloxi which was re-dedicated last month. One call, that's all.....
From the Sun Herald of April 23rd:
"St. Vincent de Paul Pharmacy founding member and President Fabin Ladnier speaks during Tuesday's dedication of the newly built pharmacy in Biloxi." He was President of the pharmacy when Katrina struck. Surely you could trust him!!!!!! Let us know what you find. I can look up the phone number for you if you are not able. After you do a little research (better than a rant any day), please let us know if your comment was appropriate.

Bull, the pharmacy is located at 735 Division Street, Biloxi. Phone is (228)374-9097. They can certainly put you in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Ladnier. One call, that's all......

Holy Cow! What if Belle is right? Snake Farm took over the Associated Press! The Snake is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful. This is getting really scary!!

I sent 2 demand letters to the ins company b/4 I had to hire a lawyer. The ins. company attorney told me, and my lawyer, that they were not going to pay, absent a lawsuit. Now, almost 3 years after the storm, they will settle directly with the homeowner.

also worth noting that these settlements came after judge senter "disqualified" the material witnesses with firsthand knowledge of state farm's fraud.

NAH:

The policyholders should be mad at Judge Senter? Really?

Isn't that sort of like being mad at a sentencing judge? Isn't the anger better aimed at the person or persons who misbehaved?

To put it more bluntly, perhaps the lawyer-less policyholders should be more angry at the lying, cheating felons they hired as lawyers, rather than at the judge who was just doing his job.

Or is there such a lack of moral clarity down there on the Gulf Coast that you don't see the difference?

I'd like to know where Belle gets her weed because that is some consistently fine smoke.

I believe Bull is still doing the requested research......one call, that's all

Well, no one has come up with what court filings they are talking about have you? I just wouldn't put it past State Farm given all the hullabaloo they spew out in their motions. I am entitled to my opinions just as y'all are and once again you can't give me a good arguement so you spew vitriol and ad hominen attackes -- nice going GUYS. Be sure to hug your mother tomorrow.

NAH, the fraud is alleged, not proven. And how do you know the documents used are incomplete in that they may not contain all the facts? Given how the Rigsby sisters have acted that is really not a stretch. It's amazing how you and Belle are convinced State Farm is undeniably guilty of fraud but have yet to see all the evidence.

It amazes me how the one party in this drama being branded as the bad guy (State Farm) is the only one who hasn't either been convicted of a crime or admitted to one.

Underdog, you may want to do a little research before you say things that aren't true.

Right back atcha, Belle.

One of the settling policyholders received a bill from SKG- and something in the breakdown of expenses caught her eye: right between Service of Process and Transcripts, there it was, Sweet Potatoes. Just kiddin...

Gotta love this one - Clarion Ledger reporting that U.S. justice department is considering racketeering case against Scruggs. I guess turn about truly is fair play. No doubt Snake Farm convinced justice to consider case.

Belle - does your research indicate Snake Farm or any of their little vipers has been convicted or admitted to a crime?

Last time I checked, not a single gulf coast homeowner with a lawsuit against State Farm has even been charged with a crime, or pled the Fifth. Underdog, have I missed something with regard to the parties?

Moore's cowbell - They didn't have to plead the fifth, their attorney did it for them.

Underdog -- here's one

State Farm is . . . smarting from the multi-million dollar punitive damages verdict BFRG obtained against State Farm for malicious prosecution in Missouri courts, recently affirmed on appeal and final. See, Hampton v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., — S.W.3d —-, 2008 WL 65107 (Mo.Ct.App. 2007)

From the opinion:

The Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that would allow the jury to find that State Farm acted maliciously. Examples of this evidence include that State Farm did not provide NICB and, therefore, the prosecutor with its complete files. This included omitting the evidence regarding glass fragments with blood on them found in the car, which would tend to show someone had broken into the vehicle as opposed to the Plaintiffs being involved. The file also did not include the Miami County police report that made no mention of dual tire marks in the area where the 4Runner was found. Dual tire tracks would have been present if it had been towed to the scene of the fire by Vail, as State Farm’s theory of the case required.

Other examples include the alleged encouragement of the falsification of Carter’s report of the engine. There were also accusations that State Farm’s attorney told Hampton’s uncle, who was serving as her attorney at the time, that she needed to be careful about pursuing her insurance claim because criminal charges could still be brought. Hampton’s uncle also testified that one of State Farm’s attorneys told him that there were plaster casts of tire tracks found near the burned 4Runner that matched Vail’s tow truck. However, no such plaster casts exist.

Finally, there was also evidence presented that Pool considered contacting one witness’s diversion officer after the witness had changed his testimony in such a way that would not have been useful to State Farm. Although there was no evidence that Pool or anyone else ever spoke to the diversion officer, there was evidence presented that one of State Farm’s attorneys may have threatened the witness with perjury.

This, along with other evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, provided substantial evidence to support the determination that State Farm acted maliciously.

Here are two more:

Channel 7 & KGO Investigation Into How State Farm Does Business (Parts 1 & 2) Windows Media Video Tuesday, November 07, 2006 [http://www.marrlawfirm.com/files/Channel%207%20KGO%20Investigation.asx]
Investigation into the way State Farm does business: State Farm cheats policyholders by forging signatures to deny coverage and orders employees to lie under oath in bad faith litigation. (17 min.)

Channel 7 & KGO Investigation Into How State Farm Does Business (Part 3) Windows Media Video Monday, November 06, 2006 [http://www.marrlawfirm.com/files/Channel%207%20Invest%20into%20doc%20destruction.asx]
Investigation into the way State Farm does business: Employees instructed to destroy documents that could be used against them and the use of “mad dog” litigation tactics in bad faith lawsuits. (5 min.)

Well said, Thick. However, I wasn't counting the policyholders as parties in this drama. They and their claims are being treated like slot machines by Scruggs, et al. Consider the other parties. Scruggs and his cohorts have aditted to committing crimes. The other firms in SKG have admitted to being part of an enterprise that purloined documents in violation of the rules and paid off witnesses. The Rigsbys admitted during depositions to stealing documents. And now we have the trailer lawyers admitting to copying documents from a State Farm laptop. Whether or not they were connected to the servers or not is irrelevent--the documents came from State Farm's computer. To my knowledge, State Farm hasn't been charged with a crime here, much less convicted of anything. So why are they the bad guys and everyone but State Farm being treated like they have any credibility whatsoever?

And then of course there is this which David here reported on:

"Because of its similarities to allegations made against insurers in recent Hurricane Katrina lawsuits, this Oklahoma verdict will make insurance carriers sit up and take notice...."

State Farm Hit With $13 Million Verdict for Denying Tornado Coverage
By NICK SULLIVAN, Andrews Publications Staff Writer

An Oklahoma couple has won nearly $13 million after a jury failed to buy State Farm's argument that high winds did not damage their tornado-wracked home.

The jury in Grady County, Okla., awarded plaintiffs David and Bridget Watkins $10 million in punitive damages and $3 million in actual damages.

RE: Belle - does your research indicate Snake Farm or any of their little vipers has been convicted or admitted to a crime?

There are two more posts show where my research indicate State Farm has been convicted or admitted to a crime.

Did they get stuck in some kind of filter.

Belle - some kind of filter? Beats me. Your sentence structure is so out of whack, I have a hard time keeping up with you.

However, jury verdicts and punitive damage awards do not indicate a crime. They may indicate mistakes made in the claim process, or could be indicative of a jury pool that dislikes big corporations. But, no crime was committed.

Belle, your cutting and pasting skills are excellent, but you have a problem telling the difference between a civil verdict and a crime. That said, I also give you points for doggedness and determination. Ever thought of working for Hillary's campaign?

You don't get slammed with million dollar jury awards for playing nice. STATE FARM WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT. I didn't say it, the judge and jury said it once they were presented with all the evidence. We're not talking about a squeaky clean company here. Go check out those videos from California posted above.

As for my sentence structure, please forgive me for not previewing before I post, ok? And then I won't attack your person when you make a typographical error.

I still want to know how State Farm took over the Associated Press! What did they do, hack the servers, use a protected password to post the Kunzelman story ala the Rigsby Sisters?

I saw State Farm's PR in full spin mode with the press while they were here in Natchez. That's all. I still want to know what court filings. Can you imagine what court filings they are talking about? That was my initial question.

Belle -- I, too, have had a problem with posts getting stuck in a filter. And, I, too, am still here.. posting away. This time, I want to finally take exception to your continual use of the word "guilty" in connection with findings of malicious conduct in civil proceedings against State Farm. Maybe it's cuz i'm a lawyer, but that word "guilty" just sticks in my craw. "Guilty" is a criminal term, used in the context of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil proceedings, the standard of proof is lower -- usually, a preponderance of the evidence (51% or more). In connection with punitive damages, the standard of proof is usually "clear and convincing evidence," which is somewhere between a preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is, Belle, you're mixing apples with oranges... and I (for one) am just getting tired of fruit salad. Get your terms right if you want to go on being holier than thou.

Interesting core question Belle, seems no one has an answer and just diverts the issue by trying to mock the AP's takeover. Very legit question but no answer to date.

Entertained, then what do you call it? They were found to have conducted malicious conduct by a jury of their peers upon preponderance of the evidence -- clear and convincing evidence? Guilty is just a shorter term for all of those words. They weren't found innocent, now were they? Why don't you phrase it for me? Kind of like OJ. He was found not guilty but sure enough a civil court found him responsible for the death of Nicole. And we all know he killed her, right? Isn't OJ guilty of killing his wife?

Belle - you actually answered your question in your latest post. I think you finally got it.

To my knowledge, no corporation has ever been tried before a "jury of their peers". It's always the plaintiffs' peers.

No corporation *should* be tried by a jury of its peers, either...

Anyway, regarding the pleadings, I assume that they will appear in due course. It may be that the reporters are faster than the courts.

40-50% contingency fees? Um, WOW. Is that normal in this sort of thing?

Rob,

What is it about a corp that makes it different from an individual regarding its right to have a jury of its peers? I am think I know what you are saying (and why), but I don't buy into the argument nor put words in your mouth.

RE: BELLESOUTH
"They were found to have conducted malicious conduct by a jury of their peers..."

So a jury of people who either have "insert peril here" damage or have friends/family with "insert peril here" damage is somehow a jury of the insurance company's peers??? That's the most ludicrous thing I can imagine.

As has been pointed out here numerous times over these past few months, Belle is VERY GOOD at cuttin' & pastin', especially when it comes to the same old recycled wanna-beliefs of misdeeds by the Great & Powerful Oz/Snake ("pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/Associated Press stories!!") but PUH-LEEZE!!!

Belle, just because you say something ad nauseum does not make it any more true! And to use your reference point, I think OJ has also convinced himself that he didn't kill his ex-wife & Ron, principally by telling himself he didn't! But just saying something over and over and over and over and over and OVER again does not confirm it as Fact or change the Reality. (Oh, no, I am descending down into the MADNESS!!! Please, someone, get me some Sweet Potatoes, and QUICK!)

OAEGE, and your arguments that have to do with facts are? Got any citations? Give me some facts, man! I don't want to hear your whining.

In the language of the court:

An insurance company commmits the tort of bad faith when it affirmatively engages in dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct in order to avoid a just obligation to its insured. We have defined "bad faith" as dishonest, malicious or oppressive conduct carried out with a state of mind characterized by hatred, ill will, or a spirit of revenge. Mere negligence or bad judgment is insufficient. 347 Ark. 423, 64 S.W.3d 720

The courts are increasingly cognizant of the fact that most people do not have the special training necessary to understand the intricate terminology used in insurance policies. Therefore, when disputes arise, the courts will interpret the words used in an insurance contract according to their ordinary meanings in light of the nature of the coverage involved. When there is an ambiguity in the policy, the provision is interpreted against the insurance company. (West's Business Law, 10 Edition)

Best not to be ambiguous if you are an insurance provider, eh? I.e., don't try to get tricky, Dicky.