Insurance Coverage Blog

Judge Senter's opinion is here.  The Provost Umphrey firm in Texas, which had been recommended to policyholders by the disqualified Katrina(less) Litigation(less) Group, will not itself be disqualified, providing that within 14 days they can say the following is true:

1. There is and will be no agreement between Provost Umphrey and any of the disqualified attorneys for a division of fees or any other arrangement of any kind for the payment of compensation to any of the disqualified attorneys for work performed after the date of my order of disqualification;

2. Neither Barrett nor any of the disqualified attorneys will participate, directly or indirectly, with Provost Umphrey in the future representation of these former clients; and

3. There is and will be no financial arrangement or understanding in connection with any Katrina case between Provost Umphrey and any of the disqualified attorneys for the payment of any sums other than expenses reasonably incurred before April 4, 2008, and for services rendered before April 4, 2008, on a quantum meruit basis, if a right of
recovery for these sums were asserted and established.

Hat tip: Phunk & Wagnalls, and several readers who sent me tips on these developments. 

And thus, the policyholders will not be "Litigation(less)" anymore, thank goodness! We might finally see some justice around here. Hallelujah!

And what if State Farm is is found not guilty? Will you still say that justice was served?

Of course not Xerac. When can an insurance company ever be right? Since they have the money, the are obviously greedy and made a cold calculated attempt to defraud policy holders and deny their claims. All the claims settled properly (which I would assume was most though I have not seen any numbers) were simply to divert attention from their diabolical plan!!

Is it normal for insurance companies to hire engineers to go out to the site and write a report. then decide that they didn't like what the engineers had to say and send their reports back asking for a different conclusion? Then, just tell the engineers not to even write the reports and they will pay for them anyway? Does that sound right?

Belle: Does it sound right that an engineer writes a report that references a water mark several feet up on a wall in the detailed analysis, but does not attribute any of the damage to flood in the conclusion? I would expect those types of issues to be resolved before I would pay for the report. In fact, this is the exact scenario that one of the sisters discussed in deposition and agreed that the corrected report was more accurate.

This is from www.iii.org, which has its own paritsan leanings (but what side doesn't).

More than 95 percent of the 1.1 million homeowners insurance claims from Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi, totaling more than $15.5 billion, were settled within one year of the storm.

Despite the attention focused on lawsuits filed following this catastrophic storm, the number of claims in litigation accounts for a very small percentage of the total number of claims filed. The I.I.I. estimates that fewer than 2 percent of homeowners claims in Louisiana and Mississippi were disputed either through mediation or litigation.

2 percent of HO claims had to go to mediation or litigation. Doesn't seem that a broad sweeping conspiracy to put the screws to the consumer. Of course, I work in insurance so I am crooked and probably a liar. Oh well, take the numbers for what they are worth.

The facts are coming out, y'all, just wait and see.

From Kerri's Deposition:

I was back at Lecky King's desk for another matter. And there was a stack of engineering reports on her desk, quite a large stack. And she said, look at all these engineer reports that I have to send back.

And I believe Lisa Wachter, a trainer that worked with Lecky, assisted Lecky, was standing there. And she said, all these engineers must be related to the policyholders because they all say there's wind damage down here, and we know there wasn't.

Has anyone in the general public seen copies of the engineering reports that the plaintiff's bar claim are fraudulent, or is all the bruhaha about them just from what the plaintiff attorneys throw out in the media? I personally haven't seen any copies of these, and no offense to the plaintiff bar, but I take a lot of what they say to the media with a huge grain of salt. I have seen way too many petitions and allegations in them, compared to reality, to know that a lot of them probably got an A in their creative writing course in college. I learned that just because someone says it is one way, or writes that it is that way, doesn't make it so.
I have known about experts that were hired to inspect property and provide a report on their findings, but if that report doesn't address all the required issues, they are told to write a supplemental report to address the proper issues. As Fla Survivor states above, these questionable reports could very well be where an engineer inspects and writes up that the "home was destroyed by the effects of the hurricane, and all debris was removed from site by the storm surge". That is about the most worthless conclusion that could come in. What if the carrier contacted the engineer and told them to re-write the report and give their opinion as to what the probably damages would be from the wind and what probably damages would have been caused by the flooding/surge. Is that shopping for an engineering report in the carrier's favor? No, that is trying to determine what part of the damages are caused by a covered vs non covered peril. Could be that all these reports are along those lines and maybe that is why the plaintiff attorneys don't want to make them public, as they could no longer use the media to try these cases in.

Well Dustin, let's do some math. Only two percent of the 1.1 million claims had to go to mediation or litigation. That's 22,000(!) unhappy campers;a good sized town in most states.

And, assuming the III is correct, if only two percent had to mediate or litigate, then why do they declare the legal climate is untenable. And, if it's so untenable, why are they willing to stay, but only in the cherry pick business, auto and fire?

I understand that catastrophes don't fit their business model and also understand them getting out of the wind business in hurricane areas. But, as the old saying goes, "love me, love my dog."

Belle, what constitutes a large stack? Also, how many reports were in that stack? One report can contain quite a number of pages. And how do we know Kerri is remembering what she heard properly. Maybe she didn't give Lisa Wachter's entire statement. Lisa may have said "... and we know there wasn't only wind damage." Those last 3 words change the entire meaning of the statement.

MDC, it's doubtful all of those 2 percent had a legitimate case. I'm sure some did and I'm sure some didn't. However, even many of those without a legitimate case probably got money because it wasn't worth fighting.

And if those 2 percent are concentrated in a certain area and if the premiums collected still do not make it worth everything to cover then State Farm probably has a csase for not wanting to cover down there for wind. And given how many of the contracts were retroactively being rewritten, in effect, by the threat of costly lawsuits why bother having any wording that one can maliciously exploit. In other words, if one doesn't have the honor to abide by an agreement then don't expect the other side to allow one to have the opportunity to get rich off of someone else's money.

Belle,

Why did the infamous yellow sticky say "put in wind" file? Does that not imply wind damage?

How did Hood know within 20 days of the storm what the cause of Katrina damage was when it is taking engineers and the courts many months or years to determine?

If Hood and Scruggs were able to bully the insurers into making payments, do the ends justify the means?

Isn't the business of insurance regulated by the State of MS, and, if so, who is the chief insurance regulator- the Insurance Commiss or AG?

If insurers pay out more in claims year after year than premiums received, then how long will the insurers be in business?

Have you come up with a good reason yet, besides "disinformation", as why the Rigbsy's accessed Lott's private and confidential information?

Or... will you choose not to answer any of the above questions. Non-answer ansswers do not count.

Ironic

And, I forgot one of the best ironies yet.

Can anyone here name the insurance carrier for both Jim Hood and his mouthpiece Belle?

How Ironic, huh?

David, when I saw the hat tip the first thing that came to my mind was "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" when someone would say "Put that in your Funk & Wagnalls"

Belle:

You mentioned that the "facts are coming out." Exactly what facts are you talking about? Certainly, not the facts affirming by their own testimony, that the Rigby sisters are thieves, who steal property, and then sells what they have stolen to the highest bidder by way of a convenient consulting agreement, verbally fabricated and agreed upon by your good friend and convicted felon, Dickie Scruggs.

Belle, what about those facts?

"The brutal numbers for the U.S. so far this year: at least 110 dead, 30 killer tornadoes and a preliminary count of 1,191 twisters (which, after duplicate sightings are removed, is likely to go down to around 800). The record for the most tornadoes in a year is 1,817 in 2004. In the past 10 years, the average number of tornadoes has been 1,254."

A record year for twisters, and in some cases extremely powerful twisters.

I wonder how many of the powerful 2008 twisters resulted in "slab" claims?

How ironic that so many of the MS slab cases from 2005 were caused completely by twisters according to trail lawyers.

How ironic is that?

Seems like common sense to me that many MS Katrina slab cases involved MAJOR flood damage that wiped the slabs clean.

Would the truth please come forward?

Ironic

Sadly, Ironic, the truth has also fallen victim to a twister of its own. It has been twisted by everyone to the extent no-one has any idea what is really truth anymore. Every involved person has put their spin on it. Ask the Little General's sister.

Don't you think that KLG saw this coming and will just wink, wink, nod, nod, take their money later? Yes, there may be no fee arrangement on paper, but they have been in business with this new firm before, so can we really believe anything they tell the Court? Think of all of the shenanigans that went on prior to this, which is attempted to be blamed all on Scruggs, but that is a little big of revisionist history, KLG was right there in the sewer with Dickie offering a "consulting arrangement" with an engineer.

Let's see what is filed within the 14 days allowed by Judge Senter. The "is or will be no agreement" for division of fees clause doesn't cover "was." This means there may be a fee splitting agreement in place now, but by the 14th-day deadline it must be voided. If it's voided in order for Provost Umphrey to go forward I doubt they will pay anything to KLG lawyers because they will be judicially off the hook so to do. I believe this order may have given a huge windfall to Provost Umphrey. They can now represent these policyholders without having to divide fees with the KLG, and who knows -- the policyholders may get some reasonable advice from them about reasonably settling their claims. At 40% or 50% of the recoveries, it could be a big payday for Provost Umphrey for very little work and a big day for the policyholders who get what they're due right away, all without the KLG holding contract claims hostage while rolling dice for pie-in-the-sky punitivie damage awards (awards that that have no chance of standing up on appeal). Remember this: when the worst happens a KLG-type lawyer closes his file and moves on to the next one forgetting about it, but not so the policyholder because it's his only case.