Insurance Coverage Blog

Another wonderful day in Jim's neighborHood. Mississippi AG Jim Hood announced a settlement of the breach of contract lawsuit he filed in June 2007 against State Farm.  Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney took issue with Hood's chest thumping, according to this story in the Sun Herald.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, who was on the Coast to speak to two different groups Wednesday, said after hearing about Hood's remarks: "I think he's crazy to call a press conference on a lawsuit claiming credit for something he didn't do."

Hood claimed credit for State Farm paying an additional $74 million of Katrina settlement money.  State Farm paid this money, following the collapse of a deal between State Farm and Dickie Scruggs, with Hood's approval, to certify and then settle a class action involving some 36,000 Mississippi homeowners.  The class action settlement was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., who was concerned, among other things, about procedural unfairness of the process set up under the agreement to settle claims, and about what exactly Scruggs would do to earn some $15 million due him under the settlement.  This failed class action was a backdrop to a settlement at about the same time of some 640 Katrina cases by Scruggs and State Farm (this settlement money, of course, is what led to the dispute within the Scruggs Katrina Group over allocation of the dough, leading to ejection of attorney John Jones from the group and a lawsuit by Jones, leading to Scruggs trying to grease with wheels of the lawsuit by bribing the judge over a procedural matter of sending the case to arbitration).

If you need or want a refresher on the Hood lawsuit, I wrote about it back in 2007, including in this post. Hood's lawsuit alleged State Farm breached its agreement to make additional payments to Mississippi homeowners, which as you can see, was part of the class action proposal.  Earth to Hood: one problem with this theory --(1)  when a federal judge steps on your agreement, you are relieved from performance of it, and (2) State Farm had already agreed, in a deal with then-Insurance Commissioner George Dale, to reopen the claims, which resulted in payments that probably were about equivalent to what they would have paid under the class action process, minus the dough to Scruggs. (The failure of Scruggs to get the money turned out to be an incredibly lucky thing for him. Hey, what's an extra $15 million to a guy who's already loaded, anyway? Besides, if Scruggs had gotten this money, it was just another opportunity for another dispute with his partners, another lawsuit and more earwigging temptations) 

Here's a post I wrote about the deal between State Farm and Dale.  You may want to note the date of it -- March 20, 2007.  Then you may want to note the date of Hood's lawsuit -- June 2007.  Then you may want to note that, in his press conference yesterday announcing the settlement of his lawsuit, Hood claimed credit for the results created by Dale.  Then you may want to note that Hood, in a second press conference yesterday, claimed credit for the following: 

• Brett Favre coming out of retirement.
• The peanut butter and jelly sandwich. 
• Invention of the word "Hi."  
• Nice weather.
• Affordable, but elegant silverware.
• Long pants.
• Smiling.
• Good health, for those who have it. (He blamed State Farm for those who are in bad health, and said he is considering suing the company over this and opening a grand jury investigation, possibly involving the Rigsby sisters as star witnesses).

 As the Sun Herald story noted, State Farm, like Chaney, wasn't buying Hood's line:

He [Hood] credited the lawsuit with forcing State Farm to pay policyholders an additional $74 million. However, Hood filed the lawsuit in June 2007, after State Farm had begun the re-evaluation process under the Mississippi Insurance Department's supervision. Hood's lawsuit accused the company of violating an agreement with his office that called for federal court supervision of the re-evaluation.

"We find it perplexing Attorney General Hood would claim full credit for a process he opposed from day one and was the foundation for his lawsuit against us, which he now has settled," State Farm spokesman Fraser Engerman said Wednesday. "Nonetheless, we are pleased the attorney general understands State Farm has met its obligations under the agreement made with his office in January 2007.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, just another example of Jim's incredible Hoodzpah.  If I was George Dale, I'd be pretty ticked off. The earliest Hood started talking about his lawsuit was somewhere around May 2007, as you can see from this post I wrote from that time.  

Here, by the way, is a press release from Hood's office, which has a link in it so you can listen to the press conference, if you care to.  

Now look at this press release from Dale last December. In it, he says the figure for all settlement money because of his agreements with State Farm and Nationwide to re-evaluate claim totaled $110 million -- Nationwide paid out an additional $40 million, in addition to the State Farm dough. 

Oh, I almost forgot.  At that second press conference yesterday, Hood also claimed credit for the following: 

• The Nationwide payments of $40 million (even though he didn't sue Nationwide for breach of contract, he is sure they were scared into paying by the example he set with State Farm).
• Tax rebates.
• Friendly dogs and soft kitty cats.
• When the sun shines and the fish bite.

Now that Hood has emerged from the phone booth wearing a cape with a big S emblazoned on his chest, let's take a look at some other statements by Hood on this matter, some that were made under oath.

For example, here is some of his testimony from a hearing in Natchez earlier this year, which came as part of the lawsuit by State Farm against Hood -- yes, that's right, remember that State Farm successfully sued Hood to enjoin him from further criminal investigation of the insurer, which is kind of like an elk taking away a hunter's 30.06 and chasing him off with a spray of bullets. 

Q. Would it surprise you if State Farm has spent in excess of $70 million on reevaluated Hurricane Katrina claims on the coast? 
A. Probably, in that I don't know what State Farm's included  in that 70 million. It could be legal fees, all that type thing. They have had statistical -- we take questions about their statistics frequently when they name how many policyholders settled and so forth.

Check it out. It's on pages 73 and 74 of the transcript of that proceeding, and you can find the transcript as the top link in this post I wrote in February 2008. (I link to the post rather than just the transcript because I want you to read the first paragraph of the post, it's one I thought was pretty funny). 

Do you see what Hood said? He didn't know the first thing about the process, how much was paid, who was getting paid, and so forth. He even doubted State Farm had paid $70 million!  But when it comes time to settle the lawsuit, he covers his tail by claiming credit for the results he testified he didn't know a thing about.  If you read the seven or eight pages before the ones I cited, you will see I am correct.  Another amazing display of Hoodzpah.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention it, but at that second press conference yesterday, Hood also claimed credit for:

• Making chocolate taste good.
• Straight teeth and good dental hygiene on the part of most Americans.
• Several sonnets and plays mistakenly attributed to Shakespeare.
• Throwing the winning touchdown pass for the New York Giants in the Super Bowl.
• Catching the winning touchdown pass for the New York Giants in the Super Bowl.
• Inventing the Super Bowl.
• Inventing the New York Giants.
• Inventing the National Football League.
• Inventing football.

 

 

Pings sent to http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/admin/trackback/82690

Ping sent from PointOfLaw Forum on August 7, 2008 8:33 PM
The Mississippi attorney general is spinning the settlement of his 2007 breach of contract action as some sort of triumph, claiming that it arm-twisted the insurer into higher Katrina payouts. As David Rossmiller notes, that means Hood winds up claimin...

When Hood filed suit, the AG’s press release suggested Dale’s March projections were way off.

"We filed this lawsuit in an effort to help the more than 30,000 Gulf Coast policyholders who have suffered for nearly two years because of State Farm’s inaction,” said Attorney General Jim Hood. “

"The State Farm reevaluation procedure through the Department of Insurance has only resulted in a little more than 300 new offers. That does not comply with the terms we have with them in black and white. We have a state court order that they signed and then backed out."

Hood’s lawsuit certainly appears to have had an impact as other sources indicated those 300 new offers came from an examination of less than 5000 claims in the three month period and certainly less than $74 million dollars was involved. by Nowdoucit

Wow. Now that's a blog.

Written By:bellesouth
On July 31, 2008 3:03 PM

I wouldn't come back here if you paid me.

hmmmmm...

Jace, Belle can't stay away when Hood's under seige. It's just a reflex, she can't help it.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Hood, time after time, "beclowns" himself. Courtney must be proud...

This misinformation by the Attorney General is unfortunate.

Belle just can't help hersef! Poor Child. I guess she's gone sulking back to the Hood Shrine she built. It really is sad when you have to twist the facts to such an extreme to fit your slanted view of what Hood did. The man should be indicted, if for no other reason what was said in the Rigsby depos. That showed a lot more of an "organized crime" than anything else I've seen.

If you can't argue with the facts, distract away from the message and attack the messenger. Rule 101 from Go Q$#$ Yourself, Dick Cheney.

23 bellesouth // Feb 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm

All you have is speculation, mere speculation, nothing more that speculation. Do you actually think the judge would dismiss this case if he didn’t think that State Farm had proven their case? On the other hand, it looks as though Hood did prove to the court that State Farm has not lived up to their legal obligations.

There was a message? Oh yeah, I remember: "Hood is good, Hood is great, when it comes to self-promotion, Hood's never late."

"All you have is speculation, mere speculation, nothing more that speculation. Do you actually think the judge would dismiss this case if he didn’t think that State Farm had proven their case? On the other hand, it looks as though Hood did prove to the court that State Farm has not lived up to their legal obligations."

Belle, please review this quote slowly. When you say it "looks as though..." to me that sounds like you are speculating, Bellesouth. Of course that is just a guess (insert specualtion) on my part. I guess you were right.

We know you can read, Rossmiller, but I wonder about your comprehension.

"The State Farm reevaluation procedure through the Department of Insurance has only resulted in a little more than 300 new offers. That does not comply with the terms we have with them in black and white. We have a state court order that they signed and then backed out."

As of June 07, State Farm was not owning up to their side of the deal, so Hood filed suit. Until yesterday that suit was still in the courts. He finally settled because he could confirm that at this point they have lived up to the terms of the settlement. They were trying to sqeeze him out. He can claim credit for this because this was his settlement to begin with. 6 months after they signed the settlement (as noted above) the re-evaluation procedure has resulted in a little more than 300 offers out 30,000. How many more do you think would have been accomplished in another 6 months had Hood not intervened?

The court dismissed it because it appears the courts/judges do not suffer a fool, even an elected one. Also, AG Hood is rumored to have invented Al Gore too.

David, David, David, you are much too hard on the little General. While he didn't mention it in his second news conference, he did invent the internet and discovered "global warming". If you don't believe me, just ask Bull. Do have to add Mike Chaney seems to be a "class act". Would have been easy for him to have taken the credit or said nothing! Is he an attorney? Our next AG?

My hat's off to George Dale too! Have not seen any evidence of him being a bitter politician....he sure has a right to be bitter after that alligator, lipstick and all, saw fit to finance him out of office with well funded lies. Me thinks Dale was a great public servant for many years. Like grandpa used to say "Son, there's a payday someday for everybody". Ashland is probably a little cool for a pretty gator. Wait until winter!

Thanks Dustin. I appreciate your acknowledging that.

(Speaking of Al Gore, where's MAN-BEAR-PIG when you need him?!!?)

You must be thinking of "man on dog" Rick Santorum.

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —"

Jace - we tried, didn't we? Alas, BS can't help herself. I am hoping the dismissal of the Rigsby/Lobrano/Scruggs/Hood qui tam suit will finally drive her away for good.

Funny. Have you ever seen David post on Slabbed? No, class speaks for itself.

Hood made State Farm accountable to him and without that he had this case against them. In the end, they had to account to him. He didn't believe one word they said until he saw the evidence, something people on here don't care about!

Until Rossmiller quits making fun of our state, I am going to defend it. Rossmiller is a stain on the reputation of lawyers and you know how bad that is to begin with, but you won't see other lawyers making such a fool of themselves in the name of their profession as Rossmiller does -- not professional and not ethical.

2 Researcher // Feb 18, 2008 at 10:37 am

In his testimony in Natchez, Hood said his deal was not based on the Scruggs mass settlement that Senter rejected. He is pointing to the settlement of his civil action in Hinds County where State Farm agreed to pay claims according to standards established by the federal court. He also said that he has written letters and drafted standards based on Judge Senter’s rulings (i.e. that the insurer has the burden of proof) but that State Farm has not responded. State Farm’s lawyer tried to say that State Farm’s cooperation with George Dale met the terms of the deal, but Hood insisted that the Hinds County settlement requires State Farm to have its protocol approved by the federal court. He even offered to have Judge Bramlette approve the process.

Researcher // Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23 pm

This Hood’s explanation of the civil case from the Natchez transcript:

Q. And when is it that you contend State Farm breached the settlement agreement?
A. Well, what the agreement was — in the state court settlement agreement filed in chancery court, there’s a section 3(b), your Honor, Roman numeral 3(b), in which it says in that agreement that State Farm had to make new offers based upon criteria and guidelines approved by the federal court.
They have never done that. And when they rejected — Judge Senter, when he initially decided not to accept their state court — I mean their settlement agreement that they proposed to him — now, that wasn’t anything I had to do with as far as signing off on or anything. That was the plaintiffs as well as State Farm.
But, see, Judge Senter gave them about 11 conditions that he said he would require and it was in that order. I think it was 11. And those conditions, State Farm never came back and tried to meet them.
And so what we did was we prepared — we took those conditions and we put it in a settlement agreement that we thought that the judge would accept. I had some correspondence with Judge Senter. And so State Farm breached it when they did not make any attempt at all to comply with Judge Senter’s conditions.
Q. Actually, your informant, your confidential informant, Dickie Scruggs, dismissed the Woullard case and deprived Judge Senter of all further jurisdiction on that matter, didn’t he?
A. Well, our state settlement did not address the Woullard case. It simply said that there shall be — that — section 3(a) says they have to go submit it to a federal court and establish administrative procedure. We don’t have a class action in state court. So it had to be administered by the federal courts.
Our state court agreement says you go to federal to the court, you submit it to the court. 3(a) says you submit it to the court. But 3(b) says then you have to make offers based on criteria and guidelines approved by the state court. And that State Farm has never done.

Try to keep the comments under War and Peace length.

I don't think David's literary style lends itself to that genre, Thick. Of course, he knows how to type, spell and construct a sentence.

Hood can try to spin this any he wants but he has no facts to really support him. He does not know if things were just starting slowly and would have ended up the same any way. Hood is only looking to recover his reputation since he failed the very people he was elected by when he failed to even investigate Scruggs. Then again, Hood had been essentially bought by Scruggs (follow the money trail) and it showed.

Scruggs not only, in essence, bought the Mississippi AG he tried to buy its Insurance Comissioner and a couple of judges as well. In those latter two he failed but the people of Mississippi should be alarmed that one person can come that close to being able to manipulate events, both legally and illegally, who did not have the interests of the people of Mississippi in even the remotest fashion in mind. Instead, Scruggs only had his own personal interests and reputation in mind, as has Hood.

Hood allowed himself to put the interest of Scruggs and his (Hood's) own reputation before everything and everyone else's. Hood is still smarting from the fact he was left out of the entire process and is now trying to claim credit for something that it is highly doubtful he influenced in the slightest. His reputation and ego took a big drop when State Farm was successful in its injuction against him. Now he is trying to recover some of both.

Xerac, would you care to cite some facts with your allegations? You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Or do you just carry water?

Wait was Hood bought by Scruggs? But Scruggs had to pay someone to influence Hood. Do you even know what you're talking about? Hellooo?

Not having a clue about you post about doesn't seem to slow you boys down does it? You really are defending that which is not worth defending when you stand up for State Farms "mediation" program. I know first hand how the insurance industry worked the "mediation" program. Where do you think the article about the insurance hoax came from? ---State Farms mediation is a hoax--- Quote from lawn of Mississippi Gulf Coast homeowner who went through mediation with State Farm.

"Rossmiller is a stain on the reputation of lawyers . . . "
---

This is getting too rich. You're here, on DR's blog, defending a Mississippi pile of venal, corrupt, and (worse, maybe) too-stupid-to-not-get-caught thieves who, like hyenas, smell food and then gang up and go steal what they can. I read most of their depos and wonder which law schools had English As A Second Language. These were not attorneys - these were professional thieves with friends in the right places for many many years.

If Rossmiller makes the profession look bad, it's by shining more light on the fact that we attorneys did such a poor job of policing our profession that scum like your heroes could be part of it. Yeah, that's our failing, and DR does point it out, but frankly, my dear, I wouldn't take a lot of pleasure from it were I you.

Belle wrote:

"Xerac, would you care to cite some facts with your allegations? You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Or do you just carry water?

Wait was Hood bought by Scruggs? But Scruggs had to pay someone to influence Hood. Do you even know what you're talking about? Hellooo?"

Yes, I do know what I am talking about. Here is a link about Scruggs' rather significant campaign contributions to Hood:

http://www.meridianstar.com/editorials/local_story_044004645.html

And here are the key paragraphs:

But as to criticism of Hood's own campaign finances, is he really shocked that the voters would raise their eyebrows?

Hood got $44,000 in direct campaign contributions from Oxford attorney Richard "Dickie' Scruggs, currently facing federal judicial bribery charges in Mississippi. Scruggs also gave $300,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

Booneville attorney Joey Langston gave Hood over $100,000 in direct campaign contributions and $100,000 to the DAGA.

In 2007, Hood got $400,000 for his campaign from DAGA in the same year that Langston and Scruggs gave DAGA $400,000.

As Hood said, he has been "following the law as it exists presently" and there exists no evidence that any of the Scruggs or Langston contributions were obtained illegally.

But Hood's close political and legal ties to Scruggs and Langston are ties of Hood's own choosing. Attempts to distance himself from Scruggs and Langston at this late date seem at best contrived.

That is quite a money trail. And here is where Hood said it would be inappropriate to investigate Scruggs:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/mississippi_gop_politicizes_scruggs_plea/

Hood has also said that it would not be appropriate for his office to investigate people it has hired to do contingency contract legal work for the state in cases such as the one against WorldCom, in which Langston helped recover $110 million in back taxes, property and charitable donations, with $14 million in additional attorney’s fees ordered, from WorldCom. The Legislature promptly found ways to spend that money, even as state Republicans started framing the case as including a multi-million payment from the state to Langston and other counsel.

Now while it is true that Hood has not been convicted there is some legitimate grounds for speculation. And while Hood may have obtained the money legally there can be doubts legitimately raised about his ethics.

So, Belle, have I walked the walk. However, it is you whom seems to be carrying the water in regards to Hood. I must say, you are quick to try and denigrate peoples' character if they should take a position you don't like. However, that speaks volumes about you and perhaps my earlier assessment of your character was wrong. You may not be the type of friend I want.

Steve, did it ever occur to you that the homeowner may not have had a legit case and is just upset that he couldn't fraudulently get money out of State Farm? I'm not saying that is definitely the case but it might be. Just because someone says they were shafted by an insurance company doesn't make it so, just as the insurance company saying the person wasn't entitled to what they asked for doesn't make it so. Perhaps the settlement was fair but the homeowner was underinsured by his own fault of wanting to save some money on his premium and went against the advice of his agent? You, in all likelihood, do not know enough facts to make a sound judgement in that case.

Belle, sorry I didn't include this in my earlier post but here is an article about Scruggs hefty support of Gary Anderson:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQ5NjEyOGQ0MDJhY2Q2OTkyMDQ5NjMwYWM5NWRkNTY=

When the state’s eight-term incumbent insurance commissioner George Dale, a Democrat, refused to scapegoat the insurance companies, Scruggs gave $250,000 to a political action committee to support his favored candidate, Gary Anderson, who defeated Dale in the Democratic primary.

The next two paragraphs about hood are quite interesting as well:

But Scruggs has certainly had no beef with the Democratic nominee for attorney general, his close friend Jim Hood, who launched civil suits and criminal investigations against State Farm, which was at the time of the hurricane Mississippi’s largest home insurer (and now, in response, has decided against writing any more homeowners’ policies in the state). In his time in office, Hood has not only worked closely with Scruggs; his AG office has been so solicitous of hiring outside contingency fee counsel that it has often appeared to be on auction to the highest trial lawyer bidder.

For example, in November 2005, Hood received a campaign contribution of $15,000 from the New York law firm Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz; the firm received a state contract on February 16, 2006 — and sent Hood another $15,000 one week later. Other out-of-state firms that have received Mississippi contracts for legal work and donated heavily to Hood’s campaign are the New York firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, which gave Hood over $30,000 in the last two years, and the Texas firm Baron & Budd, which gave him almost $20,000 in 2005.

Steve: State Farms mediation is a hoax.

So Hood was hoodwinked by State Farm when he claimed success and dropped his lawsuit against them?

Or is Hood just incompetent?

Belle,

My last line of my comment was not posted. After I said you were right it was to say...."All we have is speculation." Didn't want you to think you had a recent convert. I shall pass on the kool-aid this one time.

P.S. I heard it tastes funny.

Also,

Steve, I seem to recall one of the righteous Rigsbees saying that in a TV ad funded by the gator, lipstick and all....they subsequently have been declared a hoax among other things. But we stray from the focus of David's blog which was to point out the little general's piracy of credit for something someone else implemented.

BELLESOUTH, what incentive does State Farm have not pay claims that it owes under the contract they have with its policyholders? Have you ever asked yourself that and thought through it?

I saw that hoax sign. I wonder if it was from someone who had foregone buying flood insurance and then wanted someone else to pick up the tab when the home was flooded. If so, that seemed to be a real common scenario, people not taking responsibility for their own choices and just wanting to put the blame on someone else. Hope that property owner doesn't have any business contracts he wants enforced in the future or he will find out where his insurance company was coming from.

"what incentive does State Farm have not pay claims that it owes"

State Farm made a profit in year 2005, the NFIP went broke.

Xerac, campaign contributions are NOT evidence of quid pro quo. Period.

Are you from Mississippi? So, you're bashing Hood for getting $110million for the State of Mississippi? Sounds like you're jealous.

Rossmiller, got any concise statements of facts for us today?

Snake Farm and the Oil Companies are making money, heaven forbid. Let's take their profits and use them elsewhere.

The Snake makes money from investments. Claim payments are a spit in the ocean. If the policy contract did not exclude flood damage, the Snake would have paid Katrina claims without batting an eye...and still made a killing with investments. BS and a large percentage of the misinformed in south MS do not have a grasp of the nuances of a mutual insurance company. It is owned by the policyholders, not stockholders.

Thick, this is correct. Also, thanks for bringing back the term "Snake Farm," reminds me how much I miss the Trailer Lawyers, and writing songs with lines like this: "A Trailer Lawyer can't come to no harm, 'less he parks his trailer in the middle of a Snake Farm."

Monkey see, monkey do, trailer lawyer! You pick and choose my posts -- I'm outta here. Hope you enjoy singing to the choir over here amongst your minions.

From Factiva:

Commissioner Mike Chaney said he is dealing with fallout from Hood's news conference. Chaney said he is trying to keep insurance companies writing on the Coast and get them to offer discounts for homes built stronger or retrofitted.

"I'm not trying to pick a fight with him, but somebody somewhere has got to say, 'You can't keep trashing folks when it's not true'," Chaney said Thursday. "We step forward three steps and he puts us back five steps."

Snake Farm, AllSnakes, Nationwide Snakes, Mississippi Snake Bureau, Lloyds of Snakes London...a reptile by any other name is still a reptile. Oh, and damage to/from pets is also excluded from coverage. Oddly enough, flood damage is not excluded for trailers. BS can rest easy.

State Farm Homeowners lost money year 2005 in Mississippi. Now, if you say, 'but parent company made a profit 2005'. That's because SF was profitable in other states and with other insurance products (auto, life, etc.).

...and maybe the NFIP needs to start charging actuarially sound rates. Last I heard they were $17 billion in the hole.

Bellesouth, get over yourself! I've got things to do, I publish comments when I can, or Marjory Morford does when she can get to them. If you're going to throw a tantrum every three hours, and you can't work and play with others, then stay off my site.

Bellesouth adds nothing to the discussion about Mississippi/Katrina insurance issues, Zach and Dickie Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Joey Langston, the Trailer Lawyers, the Rigsby sisters - nor is she a civil person who disagrees in an agreeable fashion - so feel free to disable her access to posting comments on this blog.

Famous quote from the BS " I'm outta here." Has the betting started on how long she is staying away this time? Anyone got the line on it yet? What baffles me the most is why she even bothers to post anything here as I don't know if anyone who posts here thinks she has any credibility at all. One would think you have to have a little masochistic tendencies to keep coming back knowing that anytime she types anything here people will see the real BS.

One of the most ironic things I've seen in all the blog messages I've read since shortly before the Scruggs office raid by the FBI, is all the hate and venom that BS has thrown at SF. Now someone hating a carrier isn't really a bad thing, it is a normal way of life for lots of people and a chunk of them have a very valid reason. Don't know of one person that hasn't really had it in for one business or other at some point in their lives. What i find most ironic about BS is not only does she profess to hate SF with a passion, but she still carries her insurance with them!!!! Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but if I hated a company so much, I sure as hell wouldn't be paying them a ton of money every year, knowing that if I ever have a claim against them they will "defraud" me and take advantage of me. Actions speak stronger then words most times and when I learned this information about BS, if I had given her any credibility before, it vanished quickly.

Bellesouth:

"State Farm made a profit in year 2005, the NFIP went broke."

The company made a profit. State Farm operates in 48 states and in a few Canadian provinces, so it is possible for them to make money as a whole due to operations in other areas. However, State Farm lost money in Mississippi.

Bellesouth:
"Xerac, campaign contributions are NOT evidence of quid pro quo. Period.

Are you from Mississippi? So, you're bashing Hood for getting $110million for the State of Mississippi? Sounds like you're jealous."

It sure looks suspicious when Hood fails to investigate someone when an investigation is warranted. Justice is suppose to be blind, not turning a blind eye, when it comes to wrongdoing. Hood is suppose to be the chief law enforcement officer for Mississippi no matter whom is involved. He failed and you know it to be true.

It sure looks suspicious when a law firm makes a contribution, gets a gig, and then gives an equal amount within a week after getting the gig. Seems like a matter of "half now, the other half when you deliver" type of deal.

It looks suspicious when Hood backs off shortly after Scruggs wants to make sure nothing gets in the way of his own pursuits and he has given a significant amount of money.

Bellesouth, you can try and spin this any way you want but if Hood was a Republican and his source of campaign money were insurance companies you would be singing a different tune.

Hood did not get $110 million for Mississippi. The State Insurance Commissioner did.

but, yeah, campaign contributions, in and of themselves, are not reasons to believe someone has been corrupted. However, campaign contributions combined with suspicious behavior sure is.

I don't have to be from Mississippi to be able to criticize things that are wrong no more than you have to be from California to criticize it and tell me how messed up the state I live in is.

Jealous? Perhaps, but only because Mississippi is not nearly as messed up as California. However, your provincial, close-minded thinking is not what I'm jealous of. Then again, anyone who is a "yellow dog" Democrat is obviously very closed and narrow minded.

Beau, you must have me confused with someone else because I wasn't around pre-Scruggs indictment. I got on board when Lott resigned and Barbour skirted the law to have the special election in November. Hood sued. I read the law, saw that Hood was right and have been following MS politics and litigation ever since but not before.

Xerac, obviously you are not from MS. MS has not given the Attorney General the right to use wiretaps. The Feds had this Scruggs thing covered, in fact they created the scandal along with a man who didn't like that Dickie Scruggs guy coming to his town. He said he would assist any DA that would like to bring charges. This has been hashed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I am sick of it. It is not the subject of this thread. You are what's known as a troll, someone who comes up and diverts attention from the matter at hand.

Why don't you try to fix California? Why do you care about us down here? Or do you care at all? Maybe you just care about defending State Farm.

"Hood did not get $110 million for Mississippi. The State Insurance Commissioner did."

Xerac, better got take some Xanac because you are off your rocker and have no idea what you are talking about.

Belle, i have diverted no attention from any matter at hand. If anyone is a troll it is you. You come on this board only to spew venom and denigrate David (you did call him a liar, among other things).

Once again, I will point out that Hood is on record saying it would be inappropriaate for him to investigate Scruggs. That has nothing to do with wiretaps. Talk about tryijng to divert attention and being a troll.

Why do I care about Mississippi? Well, let's see, it's a part of this country and what goes on there can easily affect what goes on elswhere (things such as legal precedence, etc.). I guess I shouldn't care about my fellow humans/citizens/etc. You obviously do not if they do not reside in Mississippi, if I am reading your post correctly.

Maybe you should take some Xanac. Hood seemed to have very little, if anuything, to do with getting $110 mmillion for Mississippi. Who did the work? The Insurance Commissioner's office, not the AG's office. That alone speaks volumes (this volume dial goes to 11, by the way).

Yo BS, you state "Beau, you must have me confused with someone else because I wasn't around pre-Scruggs indictment. I got on board when Lott resigned" You note the only time frame I ever mentioned was "shortly before the Scruggs office raid by the FBI". Lott resigned 2 days before the indictment and 1 day before the raid. Looks like you and I started reading these blogs within a day of each other, so no I don't have you confused with anyone else. Back to the issue, why did you have insurance with State Farm after you publically let everyone know in this blog world how much you hated them and how they were defrauding all the people in Mississippi? Don't you see that as a tad bit hyprocritical? I personally think Hood is a buffoon, and I see your actions about the same as if I would donate money to his campaign and physically go to work on his campaign. What do you think Belle, aren't you proud that you have been financially supporting SF?

Beau, it was all of 2 hours and 24 minutes that Belle stayed away.

Belle, are you not talking about the WorldCom $110 million? I was thinking you were talking about the State Farm/Nationwide. If you were talking about WorldCom then you were being a troll by diverting attention from the topic.

I wish Mr. Chaney much luck with trying to keep insurance companies writing on the Coast because we are really hurting down here. In this legal environment, I just cannot imagine your long-standing companies willing to take that risk. Fly-bys will come in, try to make a buck and hope another K-word doesn't hit, but what if one does? Personally, I want my insurance company to have LOTS of money so that the state's guaranty fund is never involved--I've been on the losing end of one of those before.

Gosh, Rossmiller ought to call this bellesouth's fan club. No one comes here unless I am here.

I don't know how the Guaranty Fund in your state works, Born. But I can tell you the one in my state is a parachute when an Insured is left in free fall by a carrier becoming insolvent. Yes, it's slow and yes, there is a cap, but where would the Insureds in that situation be without it?

Don't get me wrong, Jace, it is better than nothing, but my only experiences with it have run up against the caps and delays of up to 2 years. My point was that the fly-bys seem to need the guaranty funds more than the reliable companies, so I don't want to lose the reliable ones in MS. However, the writing is on the wall and is even being communicated by those in-the-know that the market is not going to get better any time soon due to the legal environment and the shake downs experienced and threatened from both the civil and criminal sides. If I owned an insurance company, I wouldn't do business in MS, so I can't say that I blame them, but with the stock market and economy in the crapper of late, at least MY extra dough needs to be going to a savings account instead of insurance premiums.

Belle, this is David's blog........not your fan club (unless other posters are actual fans of the vitriolic spewings you serve up.) You have your site (slabbed) and if you have fans, they can certainly enjoy you there.

(BTW, here's your Man/Bear/Pig reference guide..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk&feature=related )

I figured out what is really bothering Belle. She hates outsiders talking about Mississippi and "interfering" with what goes on in "her state". That is why she has a problem with David and myself. We're outsiders who have no business talking about Mississippi, even though we are all part of the same great nation and what goes on in one part can affect the whole country. But I suppose we need her permission to "interfere" in the "internal" affairs of "her state" unless, of course, we agree with her.

Troll alert, I'm about to deviate from the topic of the thread:
Her provincial thinking, as it appears to be in her posts, reminds me of the attitudes of many Missisippians around 1965. That is when,I believe, 3 men were killed for having the audacity to come down to help people register to vote. What business was it of those "outsiders" (all 3 were U.S. Citizens, however) to come down to Mississippi and interfere with what was going on?

Beau, State Farm is a shame to its own employees, but they need a job, too. Since I am not at peril of State Farm's shennigans, I am not going to hold my agent responsible for selling me a queer insurance policy that he does not expect to pay. If I lived on the coast, I surely would NOT buy STATE FARM. And back to your point that I was trashing State Farm from the beginning -- you are wrong -- I learned to be very skeptical of State Farm by their own actions that I became aware of to begin with by following the case of State Farm v. Hood. State Farm proved to me that they acted frauduently as they continue to do so through their pleadings in court and in the press and in the blogsphere where it becomes obvious they have minions trolling about without any credibility of their own.

Bell, your defination of fraud seems to be quite different than most peoples, State Farm followed the policy (their contract with you) and due to individuals like Hood and Scruggs have been forced to pay unjustly for at least 74 million dollars worth of flood damage.

Xerac, I guess you should be appalled by this: http://www.slate.com/id/2137529/

Illinois lacks campaign contribution limits. As a result, the $9.3 million raised by Karmeier and Maag did not represent hundreds of thousands of $20 checks from Aunt Gladys and Uncle Merle. Rather, the sum largely represented contributions from frequent litigants in the Illinois courts. And State Farm more than lived up to its slogan. "Like a good neighbor" the company was indeed "there" for Judge Karmeier, who received more than $350,000 in direct contributions from its employees, lawyers, and others directly involved with the company and/or the case. Karmeier got an additional $1 million from larger groups of which State Farm was a member or to which it contributed. As is often the case, he won both the fund-raising battle and the election.

Although Karmeier himself described the fund raising as "obscene," his concern for appearances waned almost immediately upon election. Once seated on the Illinois high court, he refused to recuse himself from the Avery appeal. He then cast the deciding vote on the breach of contract claims, overturning that verdict against State Farm. The public, not to mention the opposing litigants, could be forgiven for questioning whether justice was truly served.

Was Justice Karmeier's decision legitimate, well-reasoned, unbiased? Very possibly yes, but we will never know. Overshadowing the merits of his decision is a single stark fact: Without Karmeier's vote, State Farm would have faced further proceedings on claims valued at up to $456 million. That's either a coincidence or an impressive rate of return on State Farm's investment. Which of the two it was is almost irrelevant—especially where a correlation between a contributor and a decision can't be known. In either case, the cost to the courts themselves is immeasurable.

Flash, you are going to have to take that up with State Farm.

""Steve, did it ever occur to you that the homeowner may not have had a legit case and is just upset that he couldn't fraudulently get money out of State Farm? I'm not saying that is definitely the case but it might be. Just because someone says they were shafted by an insurance company doesn't make it so, just as the insurance company saying the person wasn't entitled to what they asked for doesn't make it so. Perhaps the settlement was fair but the homeowner was underinsured by his own fault of wanting to save some money on his premium and went against the advice of his agent? You, in all likelihood, do not know enough facts to make a sound judgement in that case.""

I think Dr. McFarland's case is pretty well documented. He had 800,000 wind coverage and 350000 flood. He signed up and went to mediation early so his adjusters actually spoke during mediation. Later on after his adjusters began working for Dickie Scruggs every state farm adjuster showed up to mediation with a vow of silence---IE only asked questions and didn't give answers when asked. They simply took the claimants information, asked a few questions and didn't offer a nickel for payments. State Farms mediation was impacted less by the claims they were addressing than the political pressures they were trying to "mediate" via George Dales mediation program. Thats my view and it comes from the perspective of one who actually went through the mediation program itself.

So, Belle, you are conceding that it is highly likely Hood may have been indeed compromised by Scruggs, etc.

Steve, fair enough and I respect your take on this. You address the issues in a reasonable and considerate manner.

Belle, why do you care about what goes on in Illinois? It has nothing to do with you. Does large onctributions such as those concern me? Yes, they do, because of the appearance they give. However, your attempt to make it appear as if State Farm gave $1 million to Karmeier is disingenuous. While I have no doubt that State Farm contributed a significant amount to those "larger gorups" the amount, I suppose, is not known sinfce you failed to post how much they did indeed contribute.

What I find most interesting is how you point out Karmeier's comments on how obscene the fund raising was but ignore Hood's own comments against the process of money raising that he himself employed.

So nice try at dodging Hood's own questionable ethics but my attention is not so easily diverted.

Xerac-- Its easy to be bogged down in the actual clais processing and resulting legal processes. But that is not the end game for State Farm or for those who are consumers and tax payers. The end game is what happens in DC. Thats how the claims processing is judged by the CEO's of insurance. They fear a political backlash due to the poor coverage available to coastal homeowners caused by the split in coverage between the fed's(water) and private enterprise(wind). What we discuss here are merely the symptoms of a broken and inadequate insurance coverage model for CAT events. So until you actually start holding Congress and the President responsible for creating the economic models which operate in banking, stocks, insurance etc. you are really just dealing with the aftermath of poor federal planning for our economy. The CEO's of insurance knew and planned for the adventual big CAT event which would allow them to get some legislation through Congress which would help the industry and reduce its liability as well. Industry has no business trying to help tax payers or consumers solve their insurance problems. That's why its good to hear from all parties and make sure each player in the game is taken care of. Not just industry but consumers and tax payers.

Xerac do you know how much money Hank Greenberg has given through the Star Foundation for campaign contributions to State Supreme Court races through out our Nation. The information is easily googled?

No, Xerac, I am not conceding anything.

Bellesouth is correct about what went on in IL concerning the election of the supreme court justice. This can be checked out but I have it on good authority that the State Farm case was delayed and delayed until the new election took place and the court was very favorable to State Farm.

Hood was the pawn of Langston, Balducci, Steve Patterson, Mike Moore and Scruggs from the very beginning, he was just too stupid to know it--which is exactly how the crowd who put him in office wanted it. Wasn't Langston the first one to suggest to Hood that Hood should run for AG?

Steve, Hank Greenberg was and is scum, IMHJO. He is but one indication, and a very huge one at that, of what is wrong with the system and our current admin of Cheney & Co. (the worst presidency in the history of this country). However, that is also getting tangential. I agree, all sides need to be heard from.

InterestedinMiss, do you know that Maag took huge donations from the trial lawyers and had ways in place for them to get around his supposed $2,000 max contributions limits? Neither side was clean in that race and both tried to "buy" a decision. While you may feel you have it on good authority, and it may be accurate, we will probably never know for sure. Yet another thing that shows what is wrong with our current systems throughout the nation, not just Illinois and Mississippi, which I have pointed out on numerous occaissions but Belle ignores when I point out a problem with Mississippi (I have repeatedly said that it is not unique to Mississippi but she is apparently too provincial and narrow-minded to see that).

Belle, you have conceded that State Farm is undoubtedly guilty without the benefit of trial or seeing any real evidence, outside of what your your purer-than-the-driven-snow hero Hood may have told you. His contribution money trail is just as questionable as the one that Scruggs used against Dale when it came to Insurance Company contributions. In fact, what happened to Dale is similar to what happened to Bustamante in California in his failed run at Insurance Commissioner (Bustamante took significant contributiions from various Insurance Companies and he is a liberal Democrat, no less). I am glad he lost. My point is, if an elected official can have his impartiality questioned because of contributions from Insurance Companies then why can't the same be said for those who take contributions from trial lawyers? Hood definitely did questionable acts and if you wish to bury your head in the sand, so be it, but that doesn't change the fact of Hood comitting questionable acts.

So State Farm's contributions to a judge's election campaign means that judge would do favors for State Farm. BUT, Scruggs' contributions to Jim Hood's election campaign did not affect Hood's decisions at all. Xerac was gently pointing out this crevasse in logic but I am not sure it sunk in

"BelleSouth - If I lived on the coast, I surely would NOT buy STATE FARM."

BS, if I lived on the coast, I would DEFINITELY buy State Farm. ...and I would also buy a Flood Policy.

Oh, and I would also expect to pay actuarilly sound premiums for owning a house in such a risky location. I would not expect inland Mississipians or insureds in other states to subsidize my insurance payments.

There is more of a direct link to State Farm and their contributors in the story. I don't see a direct link with Hood. How did he profit?

Bellesouth wrote:
"There is more of a direct link to State Farm and their contributors in the story. I don't see a direct link with Hood. How did he profit?"

Belle, are you really serious? Are you really that naive? It's called furthering one's political career. And also, it's called being able to cash in after he decides to call his political career quits and go back to the private sector to a nice, well-paying job.

Belle, I realize that you believe Hood to be beyond reproach, that he is noble of spirit and pure of soul, but if you seriously think he is not profiting now and will not in the future you are burying your head in the sand.

Hood beyond reproach? I'm not ever sure he's beyond 'proach, much less reproach.

Belle, I just realized what was bothering me about you comparing Hood and State Farm in your statement:

"There is more of a direct link to State Farm and their contributors in the story. I don't see a direct link with Hood. How did he profit?"

Hood and Karmeier are comparable and State Farm and Scruggs are comparable. Comparing Hood and State Farm and how each stood to gain is an apples and oranges comparison. They "profit" entirely differently. Of course, your attempt at misdirection is no surprise but once again you fail miserably at such an attempt.

Why do those of us who don't live there care about the Gulf Coast? Because the Gulf Coast wants our money to subsidize their choice to live there. They want below-market insurance (aka "welfare"), paid for by US taxpayers. That makes this a national matter, not a local one.

And to the question of the relationship between Scruggs and Hood, let's not forget Scruggs' status as Hood's "confidential informant". How bad does THAT smell?

According to the depositions of Ms. Lee and Ms. Hardison, Scruggs planned to use the "tobacco lawsuit model" against insurance companies to cash in on Katrina, and Hood, ala Mike Moore, planned to use his position as the Mississippi Attorney General to imitate the "Mike Moore AG's tobacco lawsuit model" to cash in on Katrina. As we now know, the successful use of that tobacco lawsuit model would be a win for Scruggs and Hood and a general loss for Katrina victims.

Belle, Scruggs and friends needed to have control of the AG's office to utilize that model or any other plan, and by putting "their man" in the AG's office they were setting the stage. Amazingly, the plan would probably have worked but for the unraveling that began with one Judge Lackey.

Is this a record number of comments for one of David's posts?

Let's face it. Belle will never admit to seeing the suspicious nature of this all. To her, Hood is beyond reproach, noble of spirit, pure of heart, angelic in character. She is so set on State Farm being guilty (not saying State Farm is unequivically not guilty but nothing has been proven concerning Katrina that they have committed any criminal acts and/or committed fraud) that any who are lined up on "her" side are the stuff of the good guys in the old Western movies.

--Written By:claimsguy
On August 11, 2008 6:17 AM

Why do those of us who don't live there care about the Gulf Coast? Because the Gulf Coast wants our money to subsidize their choice to live there. They want below-market insurance (aka "welfare"), paid for by US taxpayers. That makes this a national matter, not a local one.

And to the question of the relationship between Scruggs and Hood, let's not forget Scruggs' status as Hood's "confidential informant". How bad does THAT smell?--

Not true claimsguy. The first industry proposal to come out post-katrina was by Ed Liddy. He made it at the III's convention and it was released to the public in the III's convention press release.

Here is the most salient quote---

Edward M. Liddy, chairman, president and chief executive officer, Allstate, said the 2005 hurricane season has raised awareness of the need for a plan to deal with mega-catastrophes. “The solution is a private program sponsored by the government under which rates for homeowners would be actuarially sound,” he said. “States would create pools funded by all entities that benefit from a robust local economy such as the banking and real estate sectors. The key is to pre-fund the cost of reconstruction after a catastrophe.”

Liddy called for a federal program to back up the pools in early years, before adequate funds can be accumulated. ---

http://www.iii.org/media/updates/archive/press.748575/

Note that the program didn't call for help for consumers who suffered billions of dollars of uninsured loss or tax payers who suffered billions of dollars in payments to citizens who didn't have insurance coverage. Nope this proposal is ment to reduce the risk assumed by insurance companies. No end of the ACC or other legal language which creates huge gaps in coverage for the consumer and creates huge social problems which tax payers have been asked to foot the bill for post-katrina to the tune of untold billions. Nope just WELFARE for the insurance industry "funded by all entities that benefit from a robust local economy such as the banking and real estate sectors."

What do you call a government benefit paid to a corporation when that corporation is paid not for services rendered but merely because its presence in the economy is "a benefit" to others? Corporate welfare?

You only have to look to the recent battle in Florida over premium rate reductions which the state sought when it provided reinsurance to private carriers at reduced rates to see how the industry would react to the federal program. Plus if you put a fee on every real estate transaction and mortgage payment made in the entire Nation how is that not in effect a tax which is levied by Congress but collected directly by the industry controlled "non-profit" state RE fund? Economist call that a tax but the feds don't.

By federal government standards it is not a tax levied by congress so it would be revenue neurtal but the impact would be untold billions being paid by every consumer of mortgages and every real estate transaction in the Nation. Pure welfare to me and not for consumers. No this is to cover the Risk already assumed by the industry and paid for by policy premiums. No additonal coverage for consumers just welfare for the company.

The current abandonment of wind coverage by the industry by legal means such as the ACC is not without consequences for consumers and tax payers alike. It also comes without reductions in policy rates despite the gutting of coverage by ACC and other legal verbage.

Of course the statement by Nationwides CEO at the III's convention is even more telling of who's being taken for an uncompenated ride already---

Mr. Jorgenson: Yeah, and I agree with that. My view quite simply is the federal government is already in the personal lines insurance business. They’re just in it as the insurer of last resort, and so rather than waiting for something to happen, to do it in a more constructive and positive way where you can fashion who plays what role would make a lot of sense to me.

http://www.iii.org/media/updates/archive/press.748575/

Mr. Jorgenson was right. The fed's spent billions in housing and additional flood payments to consumers who had paid into the program not a penny for their "coverage".

My point claims guy is that the exact line of arguement you use is not what we are trying to do down here it is what the industry is trying to do. Muddy up the waters by accusing consumers of doing what the industry is infact trying to do might be a good political move but its not what is going on. Consumers on the gulf coast want insurance PERIOD. Its been hard down here trying to rebuild after the nations worst natural disaster and false arguements like yours only hurts consumers and tax payers alike. Am I wrong? Your not posting to help tax payers your trying to help the industry? Private companies should try to help themselves but they should limit their help to ethical means.

Steve, Ed Liddy was not speaking on behalf of the entire industry. Claimsguy has a valid argument.

Large firms want a national backstop because they worry about accumulating too much exposure in cat-prone areas. Liddy's proposal would give them a stop loss measure. A large hurricane hitting Miami would not devastate their financial results because the company's aggregate exposure would be limited. It doesn't matter to Allstate where the $ comes from (as long as it isn't their pocket).

Smaller insurers that write in areas without a lot of cat exposure oppose the idea. Like claimsguy said; why should their policyholders subsidize the coast?