Insurance Coverage Blog

I know, I know, citizens of the Scruggs Nation, I know.  You will see this post and be stricken with nostalgia for the days of the 20,000-word Scruggs Nation posts, the ones that took me five hours to write, the days when the feds were rattling, the Scruggs was battling and Dickie's friends were skedaddling.  Time moves on, however, and we deal with the world as it is. 

Yes, you say, but you should at least headline this post with the Scruggs Lite designation, as it is not a full-blown employment of creative powers, not a worthy successor to the Scruggs Nation line.  And to that I say this: I considered this, but thought the headline might be misinterpreted as applying to the quality of the New Yorker article on Scruggs that I am going to talk about today.  And it is a fine story, so I would not wish to give this impression.

As you may recall, this story came out about the time I was headed to Florida and also when I hit a particularly nightmarish patch of extreme busyness, which continues in full force.  So I did not read the New Yorker article until Dunn Carney's marketing director, Marjory Morford, left a copy on my chair one day last week.  Although I am a subscriber, I couldn't find that issue at home, which is not entirely surprising -- I have a 4-year-old daughter who likes those little subscription cards that fall out of the magazine when you open it, and she may have walked off with it and hidden it in her private library, wherever that happens to be at the time.

Here is a link to the story.  As yet, it is still only in abstract form on the website, so you can't read the full text at the link. My reaction? My first reaction was that it could have been called "Best of Dickie Scruggs," or "Scruggs' Greatest Hits."  I don't mean to imply it was pro-Scruggs, certainly not in the sense of the adoring press coverage Scruggs received a year or two ago -- it was an even-handed, fair story.  It was a very good overview, caught a lot of the great details.  (But I would have liked to see some more of the Falstaffian Jim Hood in there, and at least some mention of the Trailer Lawyers). However, despite the article's length, I did not learn much about the why of it all, I would have preferred an article that could have been called the Psychology of Pscruggs.   

The story also bought into the Balducci Wannabe theory, which has some attractive elements to it, but is one that I ultimately reject because it suggests Balducci, not Scruggs, was primarily to blame. If this theory has any validity, I think it comes only as a subtext to the main irony -- Balducci was not in fact the prime mover, he was merely an opportunistic agent operating under parameters and precedent that had been set by Scruggs.  The Wannabe theory tends to show Scruggs in the light of a victim, but he is not -- he is a victim only in the sense that someone who steps on his own landmine after forgetting where he buried it is a victim. 

Also, the story characterizes the Rigsby sisters as being fired.  This has been disputed in legal proceedings, but in my view, they in essence quit or fired themselves.  They did the data dump, illicitly copying thousands of pages of confidential documents, then walked in and announced it, hoping to provoke some big scene where they could look like martyrs.  Instead, they were treated quite courteously, apparently to their disappointment.  At that point, one should note, they had already come to an agreement where they would work for Pscruggs as "sham" consultants, as Judge Senter put it.  One of the story's biggest disappointments was that it gave short shrift to characters in the plot like Hood and the Rigsby sisters.  Looking more closely at them would have done a lot to explain more about how Dickie Scruggs' brain works.  In other words, my approach: the Katrina Follies.  It would have been better than the extensive quotes about him -- those are interesting, but they are merely what people say, and quickly the quotes started looking like this to me: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." More showing, less telling would have been welcome.  

Still, I don't want to be too critical of the story.  Not everyone has followed the Pscruggs Psaga closely, and even a Greatest Hits type of story must come as quite a shocker to many first-time readers or casual observers.  But, I do have to say, the definitive Scruggs Story has yet to be written.

Also, one last point.  You know what the story really needed?  I know that you do.  A song!  The story even mentioned that dopey quote by Scruggs about how he was so poor growing up, if he wouldn't have been a boy he "wouldn't have had anything to play with."  This quote, of course, is the basis for one of the great numbers in my upcoming musical, The Katrina Follies, entitled "Dickie's Got A Magic Jurisdiction." 

Welcome Back, David! (my personal expierience is that 4 yr olds like to hide things in their clothes drawers figuring since THEY never go into them, parents won't either!)

Full New Yorker piece was posted on WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Boyer_Scruggs_Fact080512.pdf

Oh my, David! I forgot -- what was Jim Hood's involvment with Scruggs and the bribery?

Dickie was, no doubt, lulled by Southern humorist Roy Blount, Jr.'s account of Sir Laurence Olivier and "The Malaguena" (from his collection, "Be Sweet")when he repeated that cornball "nothing to play with" story so often. I would suggest that Dickie "sing it." And just in case Mr. Blount's version of that tired old chestnut hasn't made it to Portland, I'll set it out below:

Sir Laurence Olivier is on tour reading the sonnets of Shakespeare. The house is hushed. He begins: "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments--"

A guy stands up in the back row of the last balcony and hollers, "HEY, LARRY OLIVER! SING 'MALAGUENA'!"

Unaccustomed as he is to being heckled, let alone heckled nonsensically, Sir Laurence stops. Waits a moment. Begins again:

"Let me not to the marriage of true minds--"

"HEY, LARRY OLIVER!" cries the guy in the back. It is clear he is drunk. "SING 'MALAGUENA'!"

It's not as though Olivier has any need, generally, to have a squelch prepared. Rather than dignify this guy with a response, he pauses again, pointedly, and then, again, begins:

"Let me not to the marriage--"

"HEY!" the guy screams, "LARRY OLIVER! SING 'MALAGUENA'!"

Olivier can no longer rise above this. "Sir," he says, and the richness of his voice is to the coarseness of the heckler's as Armagnac is to Mountain Dew, "in the first place, my name..." He hates to have to say this. "...is not 'Oliver,' it is Olivier. In the second place, and more important, I am not here to sing. I am here to read certain sonnets by William Shakespeare.

"And in the third place..." Somehow he can't forbear to make this point as well. "...'Malaguena' is an instrumental. I couldn't sing it if I wanted to. So, if you don't mind, 'Let me not--'"

And the guys stands up and hollers, "WELL, SHOW US YOUR DICK THEN!"

--as related by Roy Blount, Jr. in "Be Sweet"

Belle, you disappoint me. One can no more talk about (confidential informant) Scruggs and Balducci without Hood than you can talk about ham without eggs, peanut butter without jelly, Rigsby Sisters without Trailer Lawyers. I mean, you can, but the story isn't very interesting. It's like some version of Romeo and Juliet without Mercutio, come on! Also, that reminds me of new lyrics for the song Trailer Lawyer Pie (again, sung to the tune of Don McLean's American Pie):

Now the three men I admire most,
Scruggs, his son and Jim Hood's ghost,
They fled that trailer on the Coast
The day the Qui Tam died.

And they were singing
Bye Bye Trailer Lawyer Pie
Drove my trailer to the courthouse but the judge said bye bye
Them Snake Farm boys was laughing while we cried
Singing this will be the day your case died.
This will be the day your case died.

That's cute, but it didn't answer my question. What did Hood have to do with the Scruggs bribery deal?

Thanks for the heads up on the New Yorker article. David, you stated that you wish more had been written to give a clue as to how Scruggs' brain works. I would like to know why Jim Hood and even the governor of the state - even Judge Senter in his first ruling - did not find fault , unethical activity, in paying the Rigsby's. My theory is that the tobacco settlement made us all think it is ok to steal documents, etc. Mike Moore and Scruggs, per the article, spent two years convincing us all that all was well. Strange times!!

Belle, please try to not take everything about Jim Hood so literally. I realize the man is St. Jimmy to you, you have a little statute of him on the dashboard, but just try not to knee-jerk every time his name comes up, you will hurt yourself.

He's our Attorney General and hasn't been accused of anything, that's all. I just wonder why you try to slime him. What'd he ever do to you?

David, obviously bellesouth has never seen Jim Hood's evil twin, the one that hides until the coast is clear.

Belle, maybe the fact that your hero failed to do the job he was elected to do and investigate/prosecute those involved in one of the biggest, most publicized public bribery trials in the history of MS? Does that come close to answering the question that you posed about what the Hood has to do with the Scruggs bribery mess?

David, you reminded me of the quote about Dickie as a child having a lack of toys to play with, etc. Well have you considered putting together lyrics of a fitting nature to Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-ling" for your Katrina follies? That is a truely classic song (I think it won a few Grammy Awards) and you may be able to use a lot of the original lyrics.....

Belle, you were there, in Natchez, weren't you, when Hood broke out into a cold sweat, turned a shade between red and purple and then held it, and babbled incomprehensibly about his connections to Dickie and his minions, Balducci and Patterson? Weren't you there? The transcript doesn't do justice to the hangdog eye-rolling, God-help-me-Mama-I-didn't-know-I'd-have-to-occupy-this-hotseat specatacle that all in the courtroom (weren't you there?) beheld.

My first thought to the "Magic Jurisdiction" title was the Who's "Mama's Got a Squeezbox".

And I nominate the southern anthem "Freebird" for the finale.

Yeah, I was there and you were not. Oh, wait, I thought Scruggs had to bribe Balducci to get him to settle because Hood was acting on his own. He was determined he was going to do what the law allowed, not what Dickie said, uh right, thirdsouth? Which is it now, what story are you going with?

Belle, I think the story I'm going with is expressed in this song, sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies theme song:

Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Hood,
A real crime fighter, he was always doin' good.
Then one day he felt a sense of alarm
'Cuz up from behind was a-coming State Farm.
"Snake" Farm, that is, red windbreakers.
Well, the first thing you know ol' Jim is acting weird,
Ever'body said it looks like Jim's a-running scared,
He loaded up hisself and took the witness stand,
And started off a babblin' like his brains was made of sand.

Y'all come back now, hear?

Of course Hood was never going to investigate Scruggs. It would be improper for him to investigate someone that Hood has to contract work out to. Of course, the amount of campaign money Hood received from Scruggs had nothing to do with it (I'm sure Belle will explain/justify it away):

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

As someone who had State Farm insurance and lost everything in Katrina with zero payout I'm just glad all of you LAWYERS find so much amusement and enjoyment out of the destruction to thousands of families. I'm sure there has to be a few hundred songs you can make up regarding us to keep you entertained on a daily basis, why not include pictures of the destruction for a real knee slapper to really show the legal profession's moral and ethics.

Is BELLESOUTH an Assitant AG working for AG Jim Hood? Or is she married to him. If she's his wife, that would certainly explain the logic of her arguments.

Help me out here, Belle: Did Dickie pay campaign money to Hood? How much? Did Hood hire Dickie? Who paid for that? Did Dickie pay Patterson and Balducci to influence Hood? How much? Did they get Hood to do what Dickie hired them to do? Did Hood first deny their visit on the stand, based on the name of the restaurant, then fess up to everything else? How did you assess Hood's demeanor on the stand? What's in that sealed order he's hiding behind? If he was "determined to do what the law allowed," why hide the terms of his settlement behind a sealed order? Since you were there, won't you tell us what the order says?

Jimmy, First, I'm not a lwyer. Second, no one is having fun at your expense. Third, no one is finding fun in the loss by others due to Katrina, etc.

However, you are missing the point. It is seeing the immoral and unethical conduct by Scruggs, Hood, etc., finally catch up to those characters.

I don't know your circumstances nor do I know if you were unjustly or not paid nothing. Unfortunately, many lost everything. However, many of those who lost everything are now expecting a free handout. Tell me, is it right, that those who paid nothing should get something at the expense of everyone else, including those who decided to have the foresight to pay for proper insurance coverage?

From White Collar Crime Prof blog: (h/t slabbed)

In McCormick, the Court recognized that campaign contributions operate differently and one can’t assume criminality for a contribution unless there is a showing of a quid pro quo demonstrated that is tied to that contribution.

And from the brief filed by Siegelman's lawyers on appeal:

Proof of an “explicit quid pro quo” in this sense requires much more than the mere existence of a contribution and an official action. It requires more, even, than inferences as to what the thoughts, wishes or expectations of the contributor and of the official were. It requires just what the phrase “explicit quid pro quo” implies: an explicit,which is to say an expressly communicated, statement or agreement that the
contribution and the action were linked.

Xerac, I think you are a bit harsh with the comment about "foresight to pay for adequate coverage". Policyholders were following the guide lines for flood risk areas. I believe lenders also guided the people taking mortages as to how much insurance and what kinds to acquire. State Farm is not squeaky clean in the whole Katrina Folly but we probably will never know because of Scruggs' stupidity.

Belle, your cut and paste skills prevail again. You "answered" one part of thirdsouth's question. I guess you will deflect the rest and think you accomplished some kind of definitive argument by simply copying and pasting others words. We will await the rest of your answers.

At least I don't go around spewing allegations and innuendo based on allegations and innuendo. For someone who is accused of throwing money at Hood so that he owned him, he (Scruggs) sure had to throw a lot of money around -- maybe it wasn't working? First Hood is conspiring with Scruggs then it turns out that Scruggs has to pay someone to influence him. Did it work? Not necessarily -- why did Balducci have to go back for more? About all of those allegations that Robey spewed at the hearing in Natchez, how did he know? Well, we now know that Tollison was filing all of this shit in Jones v. Scruggs. Tollison works for Jones and an "agent" for State Farm who both know about the original engineering reports in McIntosh. State Farm wanted Jones to produce - Tollison got it quashed. McIntosh wanted Stanovich to produce -- Tollison got it quashed. Maybe we should be looking at Tollison who had ex parte contact with Lackey and got an order issued sealing the complaint.

In that New Yorker article it shows both Jones and Tollison had not very good feelings about Scruggs.

"Jones recalls saying to himself, "I’m just gonna make sure that those guys that I trusted never practice law again as long as they live."

"Until the arrival of Scruggs, whom some in the Oxford legal community considered "a coast lawyer," Tollison had been the lawyer on the square."

Tollison indicated that he meant to parade before the court the history of Scruggs’s money fights with his former associates, a spectacle to which Jones, who had defended Scruggs in just such a dispute, would be able to lend revealing insight. The Tollison filing charged Scruggs and his confederates with numerous infamies, and concluded, "A scheming cabal should not be allowed to succeed."

It seems Tollison and Jones were unethically sabotaging Jones's former clients in McIntosh by giving State Farm all of these e-mails under the guise of pleadings and exhibits. That's how State Farm knew about these contacts. As we know, who was accusing Scruggs and Hood of colluding only came out with Scruggs and Hood not colluding.

Interestedinmiss, you are correct. I came across harsh and did not mean to. Many were misled not by insurance representatives but by mortgage people. Also, many not in flood designated areas didn't purchase flood insurance due to no perceived need. Those are people that need help but to say insurance compoanies need to pay is not quite right either. The solution is not easy.

Whether or not State Farm acted in a criminal matter has yet to be proven.

"Whether or not State Farm acted in a criminal matter has yet to be proven."

Xerac, you may want to go to slabbed and read the affidavit of Stephen Strzelec, retired from State Farm where he worked in management positions from 1985 to 2002. Strzelec was an expert witness in Watkins v. State Farm (which I posted about here) and will be an expert witness for the Plaintiff in McIntosh v State Farm -- under Whoa! Not Our Good Neighbor?

Belle, has a verdict come in that we are not aware of? Until it does nothing has been proven concerning Katrina (which you know is what I'm talking about).

Belle, still waiting on that web address for PACER.

Belle, if I understand that last post, you're saying: Well, sure, Hood was on the take, but he didn't come cheap when Dickie was doing the taking. This brings up another question: If Dickie and Hood knew each other well enough to have that restaurant discussion without Patterson and Balducci, why didn't they just speak directly? The answer appears to have been found in the Jones "sweet potato" case: The King of Torts sends pawns to engage in felonious conversations -- he doesn't go himself. Risky for the pawns, of course, but the pay is spectacular enough to warrant the risk. "Mules" in drug cases can attest to similarly high remuneration (and suspense) in similar ventures, and, of course, the suspense goes even higher when they become "wired" as double agents. Now it appears Hood and Dickie must await the falling of "other shoe" --the one that's about to be dropped by a pawn.

Here you go -- https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx

Xerac, you have the same internet as I do. You do your own research. I have provided documented evidence. What have you done?

Jeez, thirdsouth, you know I didn't say Hood was on the take. Get a grip and get your facts straight and read something of value besides attacking me. Give me something I can deal with -- not allegations, not innuendo -- facts, man,facts! As this discussion began, Hood didn't have anything to do with Scruggs bribing Jones.

Belle, you don't always provide documented evidence. You make references without any citations. We are always to take you at your word, I suppose.

And facts is what you want, Belle, then don't say State Farm has been proven criminally guilty concerning Katrina when no verdicts have been delivered.

When Jim Hood and the assistant he blamed everything on - I think Courtney - learned of the payments to the Rigbsy's, should they have reported this to the Committee on Professional Responsibility of the Miss. Bar?

Belle:

As you must know, it is only the most inept corrupt official that gets caught accepting bribes. To date, Hood has not been that inept.

But does the stink of Dickie's influence radiate from Hood's being? Of course it does. Just like the suit of a 2 pack-a-day smoker, you can smell the stink of Dickie all over Hood.

No reasonable reading of the facts can miss how Hood seems to do Dickie's bidding on demand, nor can any reasonable look at the situation miss the many financial connections between the two.

And finally, we note the complete refusal of the State of Mississippi's highest law enforcement officer to do anything, to take any action at all, when he sees bribery and corruption happening under his very nose. His reason seems to be that he cannot take any enforcement action against any campaign contributor. Isn't that sweet? Hood has basically said that the way to keep his office off of your tail is to give him money. Kind of like buying Get Out Of Jail Free cards.

But no, Belle: there are no smoking guns. Yet.

Claimsguy, Hood has amazing powers of persuasion but, in the words of my grandparents, "Er kahn mine ruck "beness'n" ahkhutz er rehd'n mich es gayt ah rehg'n nisht ine." That's Yiddish for "He can make my back "wet" but he can not convince me it's raining."

David, may I suggest a slight change to your wonderful wording?

Well, the first thing you know ol' Jim is acting weird,
Ever'body said it looks like Jim's a-running scared,

Down here in MS, an alternative and accepted pronunciation of "scared" is "skeered" pronounced as is looks, with the "e's" long. That rhymes better with "wierd."

Strzelec is full of it. And what wonderful credentials he has...he actually handled between 6 and 12 catastrophe claims IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. Further, what bearing does Haag have with Katrina litigation? They simply wrote a report and sold it from their website...it was not created for the exclusive use of Snake Farm. Finally, Tim Marshall of Haag has forgotten more about hurricanes/engineering than this Strzelec dude.

Re: Jimmy
Jimmy, if you got nothing from State Farm, get a lawyer. I used Chip Merlin and he, as one of those ambulance chaser's commercials says, "made them pay." And that's me and another 102 satisfied clients all at once.

That's right, Jimmy. Just because you didn't buy flood coverage doesn't mean you shouldn't collect on your flood loss. You are an American and a resident of the Gulf Coast, and therefore the world owes you coverage you didn't buy.

There you go xerac, State Farm paid what they wouldn't pay before -- not because they were right the first time but because they were getting their asses kicked and they deserved it.

Belle, you never cease to amaze. State Farm may have settled due to many reasons, not because they did anything criminally or even procedually wrong. New facts come to light, the cost of litigation was not worth it (even if State Farm was right because as most know, when it comes to settling cases, right or wrong quite often have nothing to do with it, it's a matter of costs; just ask small business owners that have been "legally" shaken down) or perhaps State Farm got it wrong the first time. Remember, State Farm handled well over 35,000 claims. To expect every one of those claims to be done without any errors is simply not realistic. So once again, State Farm has yet to be found guilty of any wrongdoing in a fraudulent, criminal or procedual manner. This must really burn you up, Belle, but the facts are that, plain and simple. State Farm may have done something wrong in a malicious manner but that has yet to be proven.

In fact, nothing has been proven that State Farm deserved to get its butt kicked, unless you consider the fact that it exists and that it's an insurance company as reason enough.

MDC, I'm glad you availed yourself to what was available to you. I will presume you received what was due to you.

"At least I don't go around spewing allegations and innuendo based on allegations and innuendo. "

Bellesouth, yes you do. You've cast all kinds of aspersions of your own making on judge Lackey, so don't fib.

Claimsguy, you will not even consider for one manosecond that State Farm did anything like demand second engineering reports if the first did not meet their criteria for denying claims. You have your head in the sand. All State Farm has to do to convince me is allow all of the Rigsbys' deposition to be published. Something is rotten in Denmark.

Interestedinmiss,
How do you know State Farm is keeping the Rigsby depositions sealed?

Interested:

I have no doubt that in handling thousands upon thousands of Katrina claims under the most difficult conditions, some people at State Farm screwed some up. That was bound to happen.

I also do not doubt that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Gulf Coast residents are taking advantage of the corporate-hostile jury climate of the Gulf Coast to leverage coverage settlements giving them money they are not entitled to. ("Hire Skip Merlin. He will get you money.")

Everyone who does NOT have their head in the sand understands the fundamental truth: flood isn't covered, but Gulf Coasters who chose not to buy that cover want the policy proceeds anyway, and they think the threat of unfriendly local juries will get the carriers to pay them some money they are in no way entitled to.

Who is the dishonorable player in that scenario?

Belle is simply jealous because Rossmiller's site gets more pub than Slabbed. Maybe if she devoted more time to her site, we wouldn't be exposed to her incessant, incoherent babblings.

Meanwhile, the Snake is still paying claims during one of the busiest springs in recent history. Xerac hit the nail on the head, the cost of litigation is definitely driving the settlements. This whole Katrina mess is not about engineers, claim processes, thieving sisters, etc, it is about money.

When David Rossmiller compiled all the Rigsby depositions, he stated on his blog that there were portions that were under seal.

Interested:

How do we know WHO asked for those portions to be sealed? It is fair to assume, is it not, that it could have been ANY of the players?

The entire cast of characters have names that sound like they should be in a Mel Brooks movie.

An AG named Hood, a judge named Lackey (it's always nice to have a lackey on the bench), another judge named Delaughter (keeps getting mispronounced as "Delafter"), a company named "Snake Farm", a lawyer named Dickie.

Assume away. I just would love to read the sealed portions. I am a common sense kind of guy and cannot imagine anyone stealing documents that say things like "we here at State Farm are wonderful,generous people and if we can possibly make the determination go the policyholders' way, let's do it". I know your fingers are on your keyboard about to say I am defending the Rigsbys but hold off - all I am interested in are the sealed portions of the depos.

Settling a claim =! agreeing that it's covered or agreeing anyone acted improperly. Anyone who has ever been involved in this sort of thing knows that, whether they've worked for the insurance company or the policyholder. There are lots of factors beyond right and wrong that go into such decisions.

That's not to say that SF is innocent of wrongdoing - again, I really don't know. But if one is anti-innuendo, one shouldn't loudly proclaim "GUITLY!" when no such determination has been made.

Interested: I think we all are.

David--need you online! Scruggs filed objection, request for stay, request for expedited consideration concerning Judge Walker's order. Deadline was 15 days--which is Friday.

Please take a look at yesterday's filing in USDC, Ed. of La., Perdigao v. Adams and Reese et al. Specifically, look at the allegations in paragraph 71 forward.

Xerac, Jimmy, and Claimsguy:
Yes, I got what was due me, but only after hiring an attorney. And yes, I had flood insurance (the max) and yes I had homeowners. and yes, I was "slabbed."

If you've followed Rossmiller's blog before Scruggsnation, you should understand why I got what I deserved. The SF adjuster, a kid right out of school made my wife drive three hours from where she was living to meet him at our property to "adjust our claim." When she got there, he showed up late, then told her, "They're denying your claim, they're denying everybody on the beach." She said, "You could have told me that on the phone."

A few months later, to show my anger, I took a scrap piece of plywood and spray painted on it: "State Farm [drawing of a screw] U 2?" Perhaps you saw it in Bloombergs? MY SF agent, who lived down the street and also lost his house, called me after driving by the sign. He didn't understand my problem, "Don't you have flood insurance?" I said "yes, but I had wind damage before the surge destroyed the evidence of wind damage. Y'all are hiding behind the flood to deny any coverage."(Please read Rossmiller's writings on this.) My point was that I had wind damage, a separate loss, prior to the flood. Therefore, SF should have paid me something, but refused. So, I sued, and settled. Now, I'm bound by a confidentiality agreement to keep the details secret, but my attorney assured me that I can bad mouth State Farm as much as I want, and have been doing so for almost three years now.

MDC, it sounds like Merlin worked some magic for you (pun intended).

I thought the New Yorker article was excellent in depicting the lawyer culture in Mississippi. Reading back through your older posts adds(detracts?) additional dimension to Scruggs.

MDC: IF your house was worth more than your flood limits ($250K house, $100K contents,) and IF you had a way to show you had damage beyond those limits that would have been caused by the wind -THEN- you would have been ENTITLED to money from your policy PER YOUR POLICY'S CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS. If not, then you are just another lame "sue and blame it on the big guy cuz it's not my fault" plaintiff that got something they werent entitled to and are now part of the reason people are having a hard time getting insurance in hurricane exposed areas. IF you got money due to a company caving to attorneys instead of spending millions more on defense costs, you are part of the problem and should be ashamed to talk bad about the company that probably unjustly enriched you at everyone else's expense!

Coast Boy, I hear what you are saying and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those other 102 fit your characterization. However, you are making it sound like MDC is one of those people and we have no way of knowing either way. I'm not going to push MDC on the issue so as not to risk his confidentiality agreement.

That's why I said IF. I don't know for sure either, BUT IF THE SHOE FITS....

Coast Boy and Xerac:
The shoe doesn't fit. And, it ain't my responsibilty to prove I had a covered loss. It's my responsibility to a. pay premiums, and b. timely report a "fortuitous loss." Period. I learned that in graduate school where I got my MBA in finance. It was SF's burden to disprove, and they didn't.

Now, as I doubt anyone's mind can be changed on this subject, this is my last post on this for you two, and I'll give you a few insights into my experiences:

First, I have a family member who owns an adjusting business ( large one). He called me days after the storm and asked me about the damages and who my carrier was. I told him total destruction and SF. He told me "Good, I do a lot of business with them, they'll pay in cases like yours, they did last year in Florida. Don't worry, they'll do the roght thing."

Second, while I'm not a lawyer, in my business I deal with corporate defense lawyers. In talks with them after the storm, to a man they said that SF was wrong. This was the first time I've sued anybody in my life. I had no great love for plaintiff's lawyers, until I realized the weight of a huge company was being asserted against me, and thousands of others.

And also a question, how many "slab" cases has SF or any other carrier won? The answer: None. I don't think any have gone to trial. Why? Because they were wrong to deny the coverage. That's why they settle. It ain't because they shake with fear over facing Big Bad Chip Merlin. (Quite the contrary, he's very soft-spoken).

Now, I know there are a lot of hard hearted people on these blogs, and I hope that at some point in their lives get to enjoy a similar experience to what me, and the people of the coast experienced in 2005.

MDC, I'm not being hard-hearted and I've had a big company try to run rough-shod over me in the past. I took them to court and won. I thought that the burden of proof is on the Insurance Company in your type of case. And I'm not the one even indirectly saying you are trying to take advantage of the system. If anything, I've been making sure I don't accuse you of anything wrong.

To Shalini: The New Yorker piece despicts the culture of a very few among thousands of good lawyers in Mississippi - not "the lawyer culture in Mississippi." As often happens, a few have given the many a bad rap - sort of like a "you know what" in the punchbowl can spoil the whole event.