Insurance Coverage Blog

The effort to find lawyers for the McIntoshes, plaintiffs against State Farm in one of the signature and most bitterly fought Katrina cases, continues to run into snags.  You may remember Judge Senter's order of April 15 in which he clarified that his earlier disqualification order pertaining to the Scruggs(less) Katrina Group, aka the Katrina(less) Litigation Group, is broad and pertains to any law firm associated with the SKG-KLG. 

In my review of the docket of this case, it appears another Mississippi firm may run into problems trying to represent the McIntoshes.  The Lumpkin & Reeves firm, of Biloxi, has asked Judge Senter, in an abundance of caution, for clarification whether it can represent the plaintiffs. State Farm opposes the entry of the Biloxi firm into the case based on its participation in a deposition earlier in the case and, apparently, involvement in presenting arguments or information to the Court in conjunction with the disqualified lawyers.

Dickie Scruggs is viral right now, no doubt about it.  When he sneezed, a lot of lawyers caught a cold.  

My guess is that State Farm doesn't want ANYBODY representing the McIntosh's!

No, Belle, just not any bottom dwellers who have shown that they have no regards for the ethical rules of the bar.

That was supposed to be snark. The tags made it disappear. And who said this law firm has been found guilty of anything. It does seem pretty ludicrous that now Law Firms are being judged by association. That doesn't sound very good does it? How would you like to be found guilty of association?

Surely the attorneys for McIntosh have received a settlement offer from State Farm that would rebuild their home and pay the attorney fees. This issue is not about rebuilding and moving on, it is about money. Ask Dickie.

Thick, this case is about State Farm changing the engineering reports from wind and water, to water only. Lets not get confused. They need to get it right before we move on.

Belle, right on time with the implied "Snake Farm is evil" post. It will never occur to Belle that the attorneys can be in the wrong and that perhaps the plaintiffs are wrong as well. I'm not saying the attorneys and/or plaintiffs are wrong but they might be. Belle, based upon her posts to date, seems incapable and/or unwilling to realize such a thing.

DUESOUTH, what if State Farm got it right the second time and the first time was wrong? Neither one of us can say with 100% certainty which is correct.

I posted a comment and said that that was a joke. It obviously didn't get through.

Belle, DAVID is the only one allowed (or at least consistently capable) of being witty here! :) "A" for Effort, however!

BELLE and OAEGE - get a room.

DUESOUTH - The issue is far more complicated than the engineer report being corrected. Further, the final report probably noted that both wind and water damaged the structure, but the water was responsible for the majority of the damage. Miss Rigsby testified to such in her deposition.

Come on thick. The report "corrected"? The reports were Changed, the engineering firm was fired, and then rehired after they agreed to change the reports. Why were the first reports kept under lock and key and policy holder not informed that "corrections" were being made.

Star witness Rigsby stated under oath that she considered the corrected report more accurate than the original. I don't doubt the perception is damning, but it appears the claim coverage decision was accurate.

Further, what difference does it make? All evidence stolen by the Rigsbys has been stricken.

Thick: what have your witnesses testified to? Oh, yeah, they testified that any statement could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Three State Farm executives. If I was Merlin, I would have 3 empty chairs in court. Why don't the McIntoshes also hire the OKLA attorney who won $13 million jury verdict against State Farm?

Moore's Cowbell - I refuse to parse logic with an unarmed opponent.

Let me just interject a possibility here that hasn't ever been considered, at least as far as I can recall. We keep talking about the "changed" engineering reports. I seriously doubt it was a matter of some engineer getting paddled and then pointed in the direction of a dark, smoky room with a bottle of white-out. It is not at all uncommon for an expert to issue a report that generates discussion, either by the parties who hired the experts or their opponents or both, about the underlying assumptions of the report. What investigation did the expert do before arriving at a conclusion? What facts did s/he assume were true in writing the report? If there is a flaw in the foundation, then there may very well be a flaw in the conclusion. If a contrary conclusion is not only viable, but indeed more probable, because it is premised on more soundly-based assumptions and findings, then it makes perfect sense to go with it. I don't know whether that's what happened with the State Farm engineer reports or not, but it is a possibility. And if that's what happened, it would not be unusual at all.

COWBELL: RE: OKLA suggestion.... McIntosh's have been through enough already without having to go through ANOTHER trial, then having THAT decision vacated on appeal (as in the Oklahoma case.) At this point, they still haven't been able to rebuild their home and piece their life back together (and everyone who posts here will have their opinions as to WHY that is, but regardless, that is still the situation for them.) The folks on the Gulf Coast who lost everything, regardless of affiliation, are the unfortunate ones.

THICK: I don't want a room, I want a Trailer.

From Lumpkin & Reeves latest filing in McIntosh: from folo

The instant Motion to Disqualify Lumpkin & Reeves is part of an apparent ongoing campaign by State Farm to prohibit its policyholders from having any legal representation in an effort to force settlements with former policyholders without legal representation.

Hee hee. It seems I am not the only one who thought that!

You and Dickie and Zach and Sid all thought of it, Belle, and Kerri and Cori, and probably even Brian "make Dickie richer" Ford did, too, but nobody else thought lawyers whose joint ventures were tainted by thefts in trailers and payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars to "fact" witnesses ever did. Still, I say carry on, Belle -- it's pure entertainment for those of us without a dog in this fight, and it gets better every day. Don't let those law-citing, deposition-citing, ethics-nitpicking, Dickie-disdainful goody two-shoes sway your thinking. They probably don't even hold Trent Lott blameless, and think his resignation was fishy. Don't let 'em wear you down. Show 'em what you're made of, Belle, day in and day out, post after post. Go git 'em,Girl. Yee-hah!

TS, did you read the response? Lumpkin and Reeves never had anything to do with SKG or KLG or any of them. They were asked if they wanted to get involved but that was the extent of it. They have never seen anything on the record or off the record in any of KLG or SKG lawsuits. Go read it for yourself.

I did, Belle. I believe Mark Lumpkin's "participation" admissions and his "assistance" admissions in the affidavit will disqualify him. Time will tell, as it always does. He's bound to be recalling something he once heard about laying down with dogs, and the consequences.

Lumpkin definitely has enough fleas to be disqualified as counsel. Sun Herald reporting 13 of SKG/KLG's ex-plaintiffs have settled with State Farm without attorney representation. A sign of things to come?

After Jeff Marr won the $13 million against State Farm for their use of Haag Engineering and Renfroe Adjustors, he still had a class of 70 homeowners. State Farm settled the entire lot, rather than go through more jury verdicts.

Thick, show me where you get the information that Lumpkin has enough fleas please. I just can't go on your word alone, nor the word of State Farm. Please cite a source.

His own affidavit is a good source, Belle.

Belle:

It appears the Court disagrees with you.

Lumpkin is gone.