Reply talks sex, ignores question – Did State Farm f#!% McIntosh or not?

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.

Who in godsname asked Kerri Rigsby such a question? The people who trusted State Farm to handle their claim promptly want to know what State Farm did and didn’t do. The reply states, if the answer was “no,” then that was all that need be said; but the truth is that nothing should have been said, the subject had no place in the discussion.

It is axiomatic that evidence of such an affair is admissible for purposes of demonstrating motive and bias. It is difficult to imagine more relevant evidence of bias than informing a jury that the testimony about another person is being provided by a witness with whom she had an affair.

Well, it’s axiomatic in my book that a jury member hearing McIntosh has more important affairs to consider starting with the business affairs related to the McIntosh claim and ending there.

Evidence as to “a witness’ motivation for testifying, as well as any other potential incentives for falsification, are always relevant lines of inquiry….[P]roof of bias, that is, any evidence of a relationship, circumstance or motivation which might lead a witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony is almost always relevant.

Claims documents as an aphrodisiac? Probably not. However, if that’s what turns on State Farm lawyers, they’ve got bigger problems than McIntosh.

“Courts generally are ‘liberal’ in admitting evidence of bias because a jury ‘must be sufficiently informed of the underlying relationships, circumstances, and influences operating on the witness to determine whether a modification of the testimony reasonably could be expected as a probable human reaction.’”

That is because “[a] successful showing of bias on the part of a witness would have a tendency to make the facts to which he testifies less probable in the eyes of the jury than it would be without such testimony…[T]he exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.”

Courts may be “liberal” but they’re not kinky – and IMO no other word describes twisting case law in an attempt to justify otherwise irrelevant questions to make sex an issue. The issue before the court is did State Farm f#%* with the McIntosh claim or not.

The Scruggses cannot seriously dispute that questions designed to discover information about possible bias or motivation are not relevant.

I certainly can’t speak for the Scruggses; but, the questions should be designed to discover bias or motivation in State Farm’s handling of the claim – thus the only relevant affair to my thinking would be one involving Lecky King.

7 thoughts on “Reply talks sex, ignores question – Did State Farm f#!% McIntosh or not?”

  1. Seriously Banahan, are you basing part of your case on a Rigsby affair with Zack, no I’m sorry it’s Dick Scruggs this time. Come on didn’t Senter say he was through with the BS. Then, SF goes on to say that a whistle blower, who has a Qui Tam case pending, is going to shred evidence. Looks like State Farm is getting slim on defense ideas.

  2. Maybe not just slim, duesouth, but heavy on psychological defense mechanisms and light on legal defense.

    Did you read my post on the Scruggses response? I wrote about the questions asked the Scruggses as psychological defense mechanisms

  3. Ya’know, Editilla really loves 3 day old pizza from a toaster oven but even that doesn’t rate with this even on the 3rd reading.
    First it is funny because it is not then it gets very not funny and extremely weird but there you are to pull it back fo’da horrified Editillero back towards understanding, even funny again…because it is not funny… but ain’t no understanding such deep avarice and greed. Holy moly roly poly. Just another pack of heinous amos for Editilla to slam the gates behind when they go to meet their maker.
    Ya’know, the Hell Guy.

  4. You sure know how to flatter a gal, Editilla, “three day old pizza” – but I’m so happy to have a comment other than the most unthinkable spam ever, I’ll say thank you!

    I’ve been wondering if there isn’t some sort of medication for displacement that would cause someone to get the truth up for at least 36 hours.

    Of course, it could be dangerous if the wife was about – but a dose before depositions would greatly improve the quality of the questions.

  5. I believe it is called phenobarbital.
    At least That is what they Told me it Was I swear.

    I really do love 3 day old pizza you know, but you have to keep it in the fridge or its tends to harden and try to get away when you open the box.
    As for your posts, hell sometimes I just can’t think of anything to say. Aside from throwing Editilla into fits of dixlexic syzygy, such a state leads me to read again, or fall off the chair laughing, and always find something I’d missed before. Often though, there just ain’t a whole helluva lot to say…when yer slabbed. It’s covered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *