Insurance Coverage Blog

Time continues to be extraordinarily limited.  Thanks to readers for pointing out the article in the New Yorker on Dickie Scruggs.  I was called by one of the fact checkers for the magazine about the story, although I didn't have time to return the call before the story closed.  Although I am a subscriber of the magazine, I haven't had time to read the story, and there was no way to link to it yet on their website.  I'll comment in a few days, when I return from traveling to Florida to give a speech to the Mississippi Bankers Association. 

All I have time for today is this link to a recent Anita Lee story in the Sun Herald (thanks to Ted Frank of Overlawyered and Point of Law for the heads up) about the Renfroe v. Rigsby case.  Not much time to comment, but the story is pretty self-explanatory.  Also, there will be no post for tomorrow, I decided it is too much of a hassle to travel with a laptop through security.  I had my fill of security hassles when I returned from Mississippi last month -- got to the airport too late to check my bag and had to carry it through security, setting off numerous puzzled looks over the cheese, sweet potato and other paraphernalia I was presented with at Starkville.  Said one TSA employee after opening my bag: "I could have guessed the rest from the X-ray, but I never would have guessed the sweet potato." I said, "Blame it on Dickie Scruggs."  Now that I am laptop free, I will consider whether the next step is feasible: traveling without shoes.  Although I wouldn't have to take them off, it might invite a different form of scrutiny. 

While I'm gone, comments will be published by Marjory Morford.  She's sharp, so don't try to sneak anything by her.

David, thanks for the information provided in the comment section of Scruggs Nation, May 12. I would like to request that in your presentations to organizations such as the Miss. Bankers Assoc that you focus a bit on the fact that no one raised an eyebrow to the payments to the Rigsbys until Scruggs was indicted and then entered his guilty plea as you explained in your post that I referenced earlier.

Jsmith:

What statute of limitations do you believe should exist on witness bribing?

Do you think that if Dickie, et al get away with it for, say, six months, then it is no longer unethical?

From where I sit, unethical is unethical. Period. Do you disagree?

I think you are missing my point, Claimsguy. Did you know that there was unethical activity in late 2006? Did Judge Senter rule that it was unethical activity in his first opinion when State Farm raised the question? I was following the media coverage thinking the Rigsby's were whistleblowers - doing good things. They were called consultants by Renfroe. Let's just all admit that until Judge Senter's last ruling we pretty much followed along. Should we have done more?

I don't think Senter reached the substantive point in his first ruling.

To the extent that most people missed the depth of Scruggs' corruption, we should be thanking Lackey, Senter and State Farm for bringing it to our attention.

Is that your point?

Not quite my point. I do not think we had to depend on Lackey and others mentioned to know that Scruggs was paying the Rigsbys. What did we think he was paying them for?

"-- got to the airport too late to check my bag and had to carry it through security, setting off numerous puzzled looks over the cheese, sweet potato and other paraphernalia I was presented with at Starkville. Said one TSA employee after opening my bag: 'I could have guessed the rest from the X-ray, but I never would have guessed the sweet potato.' I said, 'Blame it on Dickie Scruggs.' TOO FUNNY, DAVID!

David, got a song for your musical (with apologies to Warren Zevon):

Lawyers, Bribes and Money

Jsmith:

I still don't see where you are going. Are you unhappy that more people did not rise up and call Dickie a crook?

Are you suggesting that the bribery was so obvious that it was excusable? (That would be a variant of the "this scheme is too simple for Dickie" school of thought.)

What's your point?

Just because Dickie is a "crook" doesn't make Snake Farm innocent of charges brought by policyholders.

"Just because Dickie is a "crook" doesn't make Snake Farm innocent of charges brought by policyholders."

Why the quotation marks around the word crook? Dickie Scruggs is a crook. He confessed and pleaded guilty. That leaves no doubt about his status as a crook.

And while it is true that Scruggs being a crook doesn't mean State Farm is innocent it also doesn't mean it is guilty either. However, the evidence that was sensationalized on T.V. and in print is possibly tainted and may not even be legit since the purloined documents could have been cherry-picked to give an inaccurate account but one that would prove the charges brought by the Rigsby sisters (who themselves have given inconsistent stories) by leaving out important and pertinent facts. However, Belle, since you believe them to be of noble and pure of heart it will never occur to you they could be devious.

Quote: "Just because Dickie is a "crook" doesn't make Snake Farm innocent of charges brought by policyholders."

Agreed. However, one of those things is a certainty (Scruggs being a crook: a felon is a felon is a felon), and one is not.

I will be very surprised if, when all is said and done, we don't see that State Farm's conduct was well within the normal bounds of insurer behavior. There will have been some isolated screw-ups (there always are) and there will have a been a bunch of good-faith disputes about coverage, damage and value.

People quickly forget the fundamental facts of Cat claim adjusting: adjusters have a mountain of files and are working 12 - 18 hour days trying to move as much money as they can to policyholders. the name of the game as a Cat adjuster is to close files, and the only way you do that is to pay. But the volume and working conditions can lead to mistakes. Sometimes the mistake is an overpayment, which the policyholder never compains about and no one ever hears about, and sometimes the mistake is an underpayment, which DOES get complained about and then gets fixed.

What made Katrina different than the usual hurricane was the high volume of flood claims where the policyholder chose not to buy flood insurance. Think about it: have you heard much noise regarding homeowner's claims from hurricanes Charlie, Rita, Wilma, Ivan? I doubt it. The overwhelming majority of those claims have long since been paid and closed. Only Katrina was a problem, and that was because of the wind/water problem, which is readily fixed if the customer would buy flood insurance for their beach house.

So, Belle, I agree: Scruggs being a crook doesn't mean State Farm was perfect. Scruggs WAS a crook, and State Farm wasn't perfect. But State Farm's mistakes were the innocent byproduct of extremely difficult conditions. Dickie was a crook because he was a crook.

Doesn't make them guilty either.

Here's some more food for thought:

It never occured to the Rigsby sisters that something might not be Kosher when they are being paid $150,000 per year for less than 4 hours of work per week (that averages approx. $725/hour). They were suppose to be consultants yet they really weren't consulting on anything. This strains the reasonable person test to the point of breaking. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can believe these two are such heroic figures.

I didn't say that what Scruggs did made State Farm guilty. It really doesn't have to do with whether they are guilty or not, the case is still on the docket and the more you complain about Scruggs and the Rigsbys doesn't make State Farm more or less guilty or innocent. It is beside the point now. Get over it.
Look, the Rigsbys are not lawyers! Ok? Because of the settlement with Hood State Farm had to go back and reevaluate claims and paid out something like $75 million dollars that they would not have done had these lawsuits not been filed. OK!? These claims are of the very nature that they have been found "guilty" of with other Katrina Lawsuits ok? So you can't say they are squeaky clean. Just stop it! That is why we have courts of law to decide. Sliming the sisters is not going to get you anywhere. They didn't see a pie in sky when they saw what State Farm and Renfroe were doing -- they saw fraud. They lost their jobs. That's a big deal! Everyone knows that there is no sure fire win win situation when you bring a lawsuit before a judge and jury. By the way, you know the USAG has not declined to enter into this qui tam. So that must mean something right there, don't you think? That would be republican Bush appointed Dunn Lampton! Whatever Scruggs did with the sisters is over. The qui tam is not over because of Scruggs. So no matter who takes this case it is going to get litigated. It certainly hasn't been dismissed.

I don't know why everyone on this blog thinks State Farm didn't screw the people on the coast. There sure is a lot of evidence of it.

Breaking news in McIntosh v. State Farm -- the judge has entered an order re: Lumpkin & Reeves at www.slabbed.wordpress.com
and some food for thought regardng Notice Of Compliance by State Farm in the ex rel Rigsby case. Fascinating! They are noticing all the attorneys in McIntosh of Lecky King's et al., being available for depositions -- guess who they didn't notice! You got that right! The qui tam lawyers. And yet one of their arguements against a hearing is that the qui tam lawyers didn't say anything when the Rigsbys were deposed. Now, gee, I wonder why?

Belle, did it ever occur to you that State Farm may have crunched some numbers and figured it was less expensive to settle than to fight every claim in court. Add in the threats from the AG's office and it's easy to see why they settled. Also, I'm sure some of those claims they paid out on had some mistakes in it (when there are over 35,000 claims being handled mistakes will be made) and as is normal in such cases money that should have been paid out was.

As for the Rigsby's, as I posted previously any reasonable person could have seen something was not Kosher with the whole "consultant" arraingement, even you. As for losing their jobs I have my doubts about that beijing so hard for them. They were hired very quickly by Scruggs and that makes me think of pre-arranged deals. Add in the fact that the Rigsbys' mother was friends with Scruggs and it was her "suggestion" that they go to him makes me even more suspicious. For you to think otherwise just shows how biased you really are and how unable you are to see things from a different angle. And seriously, you don't have to be a lawyer to realize when something is too good to be true, especially the whole consulting gig.

As for the USAG he hasn't gone on with the case either and that should say a lot as well. If there was something there I'm sure he would have jumped on it by now.

Adn as for you saying you didn't say State Farm isn't guilty you are just double speaking on a scale that George Orwell would admire. Your closing statement of "I don't know why everyone on this blog thinks State Farm didn't screw the people on the coast. There sure is a lot of evidence of it." sure says differently, especially when added with your previous posts.

Bellesouth continues to claim a forum here although what is posted by Bellesouth makes little sense. Judge Senter's order today is perfectly in line with the rather clear explanation in his initial order that those attorneys associated with SKG and the Rigsby sisters' activities are DISQUALIFIED - what is it, Bellesouth, that you refuse to understand about this process?

belle, what is Dunn's relationship to Lott? And, then, what is Lott's relationship to the mess in Katrina.

Ironic

Claimsguy

" There will have been some isolated screw-ups (there always are) and there will have a been a bunch of good-faith disputes about coverage, damage and value."

I agree. I actually think that Scruggs made up problems and in turn made matters worse. It's naive to think that mistakes won't be made when things this big happen and even maybe a "few" instances of bad faith, but isolated instances and the consumer/policy holder has remedies - ie they can sue. I just think it's a shame Scruggs got his grubby little hands in to work up a "class action" almost immediately rather than letting things shake out and individuals who were mistreated fought for their remedy. I have to think that more than a few of Scruggs' clients went worthy of relief and that in turn takes a lot from people who are.

Belle, serious question:

In how many Katrina Lawsuits has State Farm been found "guilty", excluding any that may have been overturned on appeal?

Lumpkin and Reeves disqualified and I am sure Trailer Todd and the Chipster are not far behind. No wonder KLG shipped their clients to Texas.

Personally, I feel the Katrina problems in Mississippi are a manifestation of societal ills too broad to address in this forum.

Regarding the Rigsbys snitching on Snake Farm due to some heroic action or valiant effort to report fraud...bull hockey!! They schemed with their Mommy to profit from their actions. The soon to be thrown out qui tam action would pay the little gals a percentage...don't think for a second the Dickster didn't promise them a pot at the end of the fraud rainbow when this mess started.

Xerac, that's not a fair question, considering the model used by Scruggs et al. Settlements are their goals, so findings of guilt wouldn't provide a fair picture of the situation.

The other side of that is that with their goal of settlements, guilt really doesn't have to be readily apparent or even actual. Just the proper combinations that would allow pressure to be applied to infer some type of guilt.

JDBerry, your points are very valid but Belle is the one who opened the door on the subject:

"These claims are of the very nature that they have been found "guilty" of with other Katrina Lawsuits ok?"

So I want to know in how many Katrina Lawsuits State Farm had been found guilty. And those that may have been overturned can not be counted since they were overturned for a reason, such as a possible wrong verdict. And one can not count settlements since there is no way of knowing if State Farm was guilty or not because as you correctly point out, State Farm doesn't have to be acutally guilty, just that they feel the expense of a lawsuit was not worth it.

All I'm asking is for Belle to back up her statement.

Belle,

"Everyone knows that there is no sure fire win win situation when you bring a lawsuit before a judge and jury"

Absolutely true. I have no idea whether or not State Farm acted properly in the specific cases it settled, but you need to consider your own words when you use State Farm's settlements as evidence of wrongdoing. The argument you appear to be making is that State Farm wouldn't pay if they didn't do anything wrong, but as your own statement indicates, people settle disputes based on more than their perception of guilt or innocence. State Farm could well settle a claim they handled properly in order to make it go away, if they thought (for whatever reason) that there was a risk of an adverse judgment.

"I don't know why everyone on this blog thinks State Farm didn't screw the people on the coast. There sure is a lot of evidence of it."

Frankly, I don't know whether or not they did. I'm sure there were individual cases of claims handling mistakes or even bad faith. I'm less credulous about the idea of a coordinated, large-scale attempt to defraud policyholders. It's possible, but I doubt it for a number of reasons (which have been hashed out here before).

What I do know is that the public perception of the eeeeeevil insurance company results in an automatic assumption of guilt/bad faith when a company doesn't pay (or pays only part). Based upon your posts here, you appear to be a case in point.

In none of my comments have I said that paying the Rigsbys was right or that there was a statute of limitations on bribery. I have expressed my amazement that it took so long to get to the bottom of the payments. First the sisters were heralded as whistleblowers -then called consultants. Not until their depositions in late 2007 did it come to light that they did very little consulting (4 hours in some cases). The legal process seems very very slow. I have only commented that no one that posts here, that I can find, questioned the payments until after Judge Senter's last ruling.

Bellesouth, funny that you don't have much to say about the lastest disqualification order...hard to swallow that the judge actually agreed with State Farm once again, huh?! Judge Senter muct be evil, too, huh?!

And let me repeat once again...based on personal experience, State Farm did not screw me over on my home or car claim. I did just fine. You are still apparently parroting the media accounts previously orchestrated by Scruggs as the basis for your statement.... Maybe that's why I've been more objective and suspicious from the outset, having been and still being a policyholder who was wiped out and treated MORE than fairly, never once having to use my law degree in the claims process!

David: It's already Friday May 16th, your last blog entry was two days ago. Sadly, I'm experiencing withdrawal, known only by us who follow your blog. Help me make through day. I need a Rossmiller fix. Please post something.

And don't forget that the Sisters had every opportunity, with counsel by their side, to disagree during their depositions with the used of the term "steal" to describe the taking of State Farm's proprietary information, and that neither objected to it -- under oath with the advice of counsel -- as an appropriate descriptor of their conduct.

Sam - I feel your pain. The latest order related to McIntosh and document production from Scruggs/Rigsby should hasten a doozy post from David.

The Rigsby sisters were not slimed by the people on this thread. They did it to themselves with their dishonest and greedy behavior.

I live a few very short miles from the Mississippi River and if the levee gave way as it did in 1927 and threatened to do in 1937 and my house flooded I would not get one red copper cent, even though I have excellent homeowner's insurance with State Farm. I JUST DO NOT HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE, the same as those people on the coast who are crying. I cannot understand someone building right on the water without flood insurance. At times it pays to turn the brain on.

AlsoALawyer, your experience matches that of a family I know that lives in the New Orleans area. Their home was severely damaged by Katrina and they had and still have State Farm as their Insurance Provider. They told me they were treated very well by State Farm and experienced no hassles with their claims.

AlsoALawyer and Xerac, those are nice anecdotal tales, however that is all they are. I can attest to hundreds in the Bay-Waveland area who don't think State Farm treated them very well (offering $0) until they filed suit and litigated for over a year.

Late this afternoon, US Magistrate Walker issued an order which indicates Dick and Zack must produce a good bit of material they had objected to producing in the McIntosh case. Appears Walker may have "split the baby" by denying some of the requests and approving others. Wonder if Judge Senter will be asked to weigh in on this? Me thinks if I were a Scruggs, this would not be a win. Bull, what do you think?

Reality, I used my personal experience to take this "I know a hundred people" out of the equation. Well, I know a hundred as well that were treated just fine like me. And the funny thing is, how many of the hundred do you know that only had flood damage, but no flood insurance, or were underinsured and are mad because State Farm didn't pay under the wind policy, etc. I think too many people confuse being "treated poorly" with being paid or not paid as per the policy, whether you like it or not. I know a guy who only had $60k in wind and flood. He had a $200k loss. State farm paid him policy limits, but he felt like he was $crewed because he didn't get more than his policy limits. Did State Farm do anything wrong? NO. But he sure bad-mouths them. Maybe he's one of the folks you know in Bay St. Louis.

So reality, do you have a personal experience, or are you just going by what you "heard"?!

Reality, I could probably point to thousands that say they were treated very well. And as AlsoALawyer points out, do you or anyone in the media bother to find out why they are dissatisfied? Many people were underinsured, probably due to their own wanting to save a few bucks at that moment instead of paying a few bucks more to make sure they received what was needed when a major catastrophie occured. Many people then expect to receive more than what they were entitled to. So, Reality, tell me how would it be fair for someone who, by choice, was underinsured should receive the same benefit as someone who made sure s/he was properly insured and paid accordingly?

To all who contribute, thank you. Your comments are more interesting and entertaining then watching old reruns of Seinfeld. In one way or another, it seems to me that all of the familiar Seinfeld characters are once again alive and well. All celebrating their new life in cyberspace. Now with that said, isn't it about time that the main character "Jerry,"(Dave Rossmiller)cook up a fresh batch of news. After all, we've had none of his great "soup" since May 14th. Best regards to my fellow cast members.

AAL, I was personally involved in the claims to which I refer. With regard to those and many other claims, State Farm paid nothing on "slab" claims even though their standard homeowners policy form FP-7955 is an "all risk" policy whereby under Mississippi Law, as recently confirmed by none other than the 5th Circuit in the Broussard case, the insurer bears the burden to prove the amount of the loss caused by an excluded peril. You may plausibly argue that flood caused a lot, or even the majority, of the damage but I don't think it is reasonable to take the position that there was no wind damage to homes on the beach in Bay St. Louis/Waveland when State Farm paid wind damage claims in every county of Mississippi as a result of Katrina. Now perhaps in your mind these good neighbors of State Farm were "treated just fine" like you and your hundred friends (or maybe it's that the adjuster smiled and was polite when she put a big goose egg on the table) and on that we will have to disagree. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the policyholder, as directed by the Insurance Commissioner, State Farm gave the benefit of the doubt to itself.

Btw, I am pleased that you and your friends were well treated, but that does not prove that others were not.

Let us not forget the 5th Circuit overturned the Broussard verdict and the Broussards have since settled out-of-court. The 5th circuit opinion regarding Broussard and the interpretation of the ACC language was also more complex than simply determining burden of proof. However, the Court did uphold the ACC language as unambiguous. David has commented on this matter on more than one occasion...wind is covered under a standard homeowners policy, flood is not. Snake Farm merely had to prove a flood event caused the damage and there is no doubt the highest measured storm surge was created by Katrina. A strict interpretation of the policy precluded Snake Farm paying for wind damage that was simply unidentifiable.

Further, how much would have been enough? Let's say Snake Farm made a decision to pay for items that might have been damaged, but were unidentifiable due to the storm surge. If Snake Farm offered to pay for the roof, exterior claddings, windows or other building items typically damaged in a wind only event, would that have been enough? Personally, I don't think so. Once they paid for the roof, the assumption would be that the personal property contained inside the home was damaged. Also, additional living expenses would be triggered if the exterior opening was created by a covered loss.

There are so many variables and simply stating that Snake Farm made a decision to screw the inhabitants of south Mississippi is simply untrue. Snake Farm obviously made a decision to interpret the homeowners policy in a stringent manner. Benefit of the doubt should be extended to the policyholder, regardless of the situation, but totally discarding the policy language because of a storm's magnitude is not only absurd, it punishes the remainder of a insurance company's policyholders choose to not live within spitting distance of the water.

Jim Hood and his cronies started railing against major insurance companies pracically before the waters of Katrina receded. What good has it gotten him? He has been exposed as a crooked politician with an agenda not meant to benefit his consituents. Some of his cohorts in crime have pled guilty to felonies and will soon be spending time in prison. What good has it done the sisters? Their careers are over and they have been exposed as greedy thieves.

With a storm of Katrina's magnitude, lawsuits were inevitable. But the large number of suits, angst and gnashing of teeth following Katrina can not be solely blamed on Snake Farm. The legal/political/societal enviroment in Mississipi played a role as well.

Reality, what you refer to was a matter the court decided as to who had the burden of proof. Before that there was no standard so State Farm waas not acting in Bad Faith nor in a fraudulent manner. However, many in those slab cases were trying to get the full amount by claiming the damage was caused entirely by wind and that is just patently unrealistic. And do you know all of the circumstances in those "hundreds" of cases? Unless you do then it is wrong for you or anyone else to presume that State Farm is at fault in every one of those cases of dissatisfaction. There are probably many cases similar to the dissatisfied policyholder AAL cited in his previous post. People somehow feel they are obligated to something they don't deserve. I for one would not want to be a plicyholder that has to pay for someone else's short-sighted greed by wanting to save a few bucks by under-insuring and then expect my insurance provider to pay out anyway.

Xerac, Thick, and AAL, I can assure you that I am initmately familiar with legal arguments regarding the cases to which I refer and State Farm's position in each of them. It was particularly interesting to see SF take the positon that the policyholder did not have standing to sue it because they had recieved an SBA disaster assistance laon (that's a novel and crafty argument devised by some lawyer in New York to avoid the merits of the case that didn't pass the laugh test and that it publicly ran away from when it became known. See Palmer v. State Farm as to the court's treatment of that argument). It's the nature of the business, I suppose, when you sue your insurer because they pay you zip on a total loss, but, again, my point is that that ain't being "treated just fine" in my book.

Anyway, I happen to agree with Mr. Rossmiller's analysis of the ACC clause and does Judge Senter. It is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the insurer and wind damage is covered even if surge subsequently causes additional damage. That means that the insurer's duty to adjust the claim should entail an analysis of what wind damage occured to the destroyed structure before or independent of the effects of surge. It was clear that on the claims I am referring to, the "thousands of happy customers" notwithstanding, that did not occur.

Xerac, as to your statement that before Broussard "there was no standard" regarding the burden of proof in these cases, please read the opinion. In it you will see several references to Hurricane Camiile cases where that rule of Mississippi law was set forth - it is not new and a fallacy to claim otherwise. While State Farm's "shift back" theory regarding the burden of proof was pretty clever, I always thought it frivolous (that a 5th Circuit panel that included Judge Jones rejected it is a pretty good indication that it was).

Finally, I've heard a thousand times about the "underinsured" issue. Of the hundreds of policyholders I dealt with, maybe one of them was not underinsured for post-Katrina replacement costs. So what. Leaving agent or company negligence aside, why did State Farm have a policy to pay zero on slabs in the surge zone? And what does inadequate policy limits have to do with a total denial of a claim. If the house was worth $100k and only insured for $20k and there was $25k in wind damage, the company owes the policy limit of 20k, not zero.

I believe state Farm, along with other insurance companies, relied on government reports stating the surge caused by Katrina and that it was no stronger than a Category 3 Hurricane when it made landfall, according to the reports from the NOAA. This formed the basis of denying slab cases, I believe. Because of these reports it was determined that the surge and not the winds had to be the cause of the slab cases. If this is the case then the insurance companies, State Farm included, were not acting in a malicious or fraudulent manner but relying on reports from what should have been a reliable source. Of course, it is much easier to go after "evil" insurance companies than incompetent government agencies, if those agencies can even be sued to begin with.

I might be wrong in my above analysis but I do remember reading something to this effect before but unfortunately I can not find the source.

Reality, I believe you meant State Farm said the SBA had no standing to sue, because an insurance contract cannot be assigned. You might want to re-read that case you mentioned.

UNDERDOG, I don't really want to get in a debate with you about whether the sky if blue or red. I would suggest the you re-read the Palmer opinion by Judge Senter rejecting State Farm's motion to dismiss the POLICYHOLDER'S suit claiming that they lacked standing because of the SBA loan. In fact, State Farm claimed the opposite of what you assert and argued that the SBA had standing and not the policyholder, knowing that the SBA wouldn't sue them. If you have pacer, you may also want to read State Farm's motion to dismiss in that case if you're still confused.

Xerac, I don't think I ever posted that State Farm was "evil", "malicious" or "fraudulent." I began posting to respond to AAL's comment the he and his friends were "treated just fine" by State Farm, and while that is wonderful, there were many policyholders, particularly those with slabs, who, in my opinion, were not.

Companies, and people for that matter, acting in their self interest often treat others less than "just fine" without qualifying them as evil. Many companies found a way to pay significant amounts on slabs because the weather data was conflicting and they gave the benefit of the doubt to their customers. By contrast, State Farm seized on the most favorable weather data and pursued the most aggressive legal stance in those cases. They may have develped an "arguable basis" to deny the claim but ... .

Let's not forget that State Farm paid thousands of claims for wind damage miles from the coast but not near the percentage of those on the coast even though the hurricane lost power once it hit land. Remember the coast had the highest wind but the lowest wind damage claims.

True, even miserly Snake Farm paid for wind claims as far north as Yazoo City...don't remember one slick slab in Yazoo City though. Jerry Clower is probably laughing in the grave at this mess.

Reality,
You were right and I was wrong. I believe the Palmer case is an anomaly, though, and the person whose head rolled over that filing is not happy you brought it up.

I don't know Jerry Clower off hand but I can't imagine State Farm thinking they wouldn't have to pay claims on wind on the coast when they had to all the way inland. You'd think they were trying to get one past the NFIP! Oh, yeah, those were ALL flood. Yeah, right!

Underdog, those type motions were filed in several cases in Mississippi. I only referred you to Palmer because it is the case Judge Senter chose to publish on the court's website. State Farm also took this approach in Louisiana, which means it was not some low level decision. The firm which filed these motions in MS still represents SF in many, many cases.

Belle - I don't recommend drinking and dialing, nor do I recommend tipping and typing. By the bye, the NFIP reinspected flood claims handled by the Snake...they determined not one claim was improperly handled. No doubt the NFIP is also in cahoots with the Snake...along with the AP, NAACP, Ku Klux Klan, Southern Christian Leadership Council and various other reptilian organizations.

Thick, you wouldn't be lying would you? Where is your source on that?

I never lie.

Call the NFIP and ask them for yourself. Seems like former head of NFIP Jim Shortley testifed to such before Congress during one of Gene Taylor's tirades. Former insurance commish said it best when asked about Taylor's attempts to legislate "Gene Taylor couldn't pass water."

Another Snake Farm/mole stories.....(sorry, no interspecies pun intended) from State Farm PR Source.......wait, the ASSOCIATED PRESS! Got it, sorry!

http://news.practice.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310//04-22-2008/20080422000514_05.html

(Sorry, Belle, I know there's no convincing you otherwise, but the EVIDENCE is mounting pretty high against your tirades/assumptions!)