While some, with no room to talk I might add, have made light of my comment about there being another side to the story of the surprising Motion to dismiss the extra-contractual claims in McIntosh. There definitely is another side as no one folded and slipped away, at least not in McIntosh.
Judge Senter’s order made it official and Merlin himself has confirmed what reader Beau suggested and Sop defined in terms of Fifth Circuit’s decision in Broussard – the contractual claim remains. Anita Lee had that story, of course.
Pre-trial investigation, the McIntoshes’ attorneys now say, shows State Farm “had a reasonable basis for taking the position it did regarding coverage.” The only issue remaining is whether State Farm breached its contract with the McIntoshes by failing to pay what was owed under the policy and any damages that would be owed as a result.
Merlin also told Lee he would be very hesitant for people outside the lawsuit to try to read too much into what it means when parties dismiss causes of action or take other actions within this lawsuit. Of course, that hasn’t discouraged commenters declaring the McIntosh motion an all out victory for State Farm and kiss of death for other cases. Thankgod for those like researcher in the blogosphere – else we slabbies, as the gabbies call us, would have to go it alone. Continue reading “"bad faith" or just flat stupid – the issue at the heart of McIntosh”