State Farm’s Reply claims the Scruggses’ response is written as if this case were a blank slate with no past history and no prior rulings from this Court and the discovery process is designed to seek the truth – and applauds its own integrity noting since the lawsuit was filed, State Farm has worked to bring the true facts to light.
I’m going to forgo a point by point comparison of the State Farm reply to the Scruggs response and focus on one aspect that indicates just how far off base State Farm’s defense is in this case. The closest thing to sex that’s relevant is the blow job Katrina did on the coast and how it was addressed in claims handling, the McIntosh claims in the instant case.
On the first page of their response, as their isolated lead-off cherry-picked example, the Scruggses attempt to shock, distract, and prejudice this Court with unfounded assertions that State Farm merely seeks to harass them with questions about the possibility of an affair with Kerri Rigsby… What the Scruggses fail to mention is that Kerri Rigsby has admitted having affairs with married men involved in handling Katrina claims and that there has been talk of an affair involving one of the Scruggses. Continue reading “Reply talks sex, ignores question – Did State Farm f#!% McIntosh or not?”
The Sun Herald reports on a Biloxi attorney’s claim homeowners have been shortchanged in the settlement of Katrina insurance claims.
At least two major insurance companies have shortchanged homeowners covered for inflation on their Hurricane Katrina losses, said a Biloxi attorney who advises policyholders to make sure they are fully compensated under the inflation provision.
“Nationwide and State Farm have been misrepresenting the amount of coverage they owe Mississippians with total losses from Katrina,” Christopher C. Van Cleave said. “We’re not talking about small money. We’re talking substantial amounts.”
He said the companies have used the date of the loss – Aug. 29, 2005 – to calculate payments for inflation owed to policyholders who bought the optional coverage. That would be fine for those paid shortly after the storm, but many left with only slabs waited a year or more for insurance money because both Nationwide and State Farm initially denied coverage for wind damage when storm surge was involved in total losses.
What Van Cleave is talking about is known as demand surge in the insurance industry.
Demand surge refers to price inflation for scarce construction materials, labor and services following a significant disaster. The more widespread the damage, the greater the price for the rebuilding resources.
Demand surge costs are influenced by the inability to have resources simultaneously available when damage is widespread, said David Lalonde, senior vp in the Toronto office of catastrophe modeler AIR Worldwide Corp.
According to a recent article in Business Insurance, the industry is aware of the problem and changed the model used to project Continue reading “Another damaging surge slows rebuilding – "demand surge" calculation left homeowners shortchanged”
Patsy Brumfield provides an update to yesterday’s story about the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ban on publication of Judge Diaz’s dissenting view on a decision – and there is no longer any question the Supremes play politics with the State’s judicial system.
First, however, a look at the related Order Diaz issued. h/t folo:
This order is entered pursuant to the order of this court to dismiss the petition for certiorari as improvidently granted. By majority vote, the undersigned Justice was prohibited from issuing the attached dissent to the above referenced order. The authority to issue a dissent to an order of this court is well established. See In re Bell, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 769 (Nov. 9, 2006) (Diaz, J., dissenting) andBarrettv. State, 670 So. 2d20 (Miss. 1996) (Banks, J., dissenting, joined by Lee, C.l).
The authority to issue a dissent to an order to dismiss a petition for certiorari is likewise well established. See e.g., Roper v. Weaver, 127 S. Ct. 2022, 2024, 167 L.Ed.2d 966 (2007) (Scalia, 1., dissenting, joined by Thomas & Alito, n.). A majority vote to censor a justice of the court and prohibit the issuance of a dissenting opinion may be unprecedented in the history of American jurisprudence. (emphasis added)
SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of August, 2008.
Oliver E. Diaz, Jr., Presiding Judge
Next, from the Daily Journal’s update:
It’s public now – a dissenting opinion banned from disclosure Thursday by a majority of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Continue reading “Supremely smarter today Supremes release Diaz dissent to Daily Journal (UPDATE in comments)”
Since “the blogging class” is cursed not only by work but a need for sleep, I’ve pulled text from the motion that discusses the points made in the opening summary. Bold text, other than headings, has been added for emphasis of selected points and related comment is added in closing.
I’ve made no secret of how distasteful I found the Oxford depositions. Questions like those Belle quoted in a comment to a Thursday post were very much on my mind as I read the Scruggses response incorporating some questions and glanced over those in the Appendices.
That’s when it struck me that what I was reading was not just distasteful but likely a classic example of Freudian Projection, the most primitive defense mechanism known other than denial.
The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest.
Projection applied to this question, for example, Have you had an affair with Kerri Rigsby? would suggest someone involved gained access to information by establishing such a relationship. Perhaps, Tammy, the first to come to mind, had more than cottonwoods whispering in her ear. Continue reading “Dick and Zach oppose Renfroe's joinder and motion”