Breaking: Katrina RICO suit settled!

All parties have engaged in discovery on a formal and informal basis, though all discovery is not complete.

Plaintiff’s have determined that all claims arising against the defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act…(“RICO”)  should be dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants.

The Motion to Dismiss certain claims and defendants makes it clear that the plaintiff’s retain all but the RICO claims.

Thanks for the heads up, Proximo!  Any guesses about the story behind the story?

7 thoughts on “Breaking: Katrina RICO suit settled!”

  1. The motion does not make it look like a settlement at all. In fact, settlements are NEVER completed wth a dismissal “without prejudice.”

  2. Maybe it’s another McIntosh trick with the agreement to dismiss tied to the settlement of each individual claim.

  3. This is exactly what the doc says it is IMHO, a walk away. Economics killed this one as RICO suits are hard and expensive to litigate. It is safe to say that Provost Umphrey did not have Dickie Scrugg’s resources to persue this type litigation on the come.

    As to the individual cases we’ve been following they all share a commonality that is not apparent on the surface of their cases Policyholder/Litigatant v Insurance Company. That gets back to Sup’s post on Yahoo ALL on the McKinsey papers.

    Economics 101 did Shows in. That doesn’t change the dirty secrets though behind Shows. Nowdy, you were looking for individual cases to follow, the case header in Shows should give you a great blueprint to follow.


  4. RICO, class actions and qui tams are very sticky wickets. This has been particularly true relative to Katrina claims.

    I once had a judge tell me, pre-Katrina, “I think 99.9% of all bad faith claims are just the plaintiff lawyers trying to use these claims as leverage (to get larger settlements).” He has since changed his mind.

    Unfortunately, altough I dispute his original %, there are some lawyers who make these claims for that exact purpose, but those same lawyers would not try these cases even if you held a gun to their heads (these comments absolutely are not directed to the Shows lawyers). The concept is similar to: “If you pull that gun on me, you better be ready to use it.”

    But Sop, the point is that it’s hard to get judges and juries to understand that some insurers, especially the ones who historically have attached the word “Good” to their names via slogans, actually could do some bad things. And civil RICO being statutory law born of a criminal statute essentially madates that the plaintiffs prove a crime has been committed. This is a very steep legal standard.

    The evidence and testimony I’ve read here in Gagne looks similar to much of the evidence I have seen in my own cases; much like McIntosh, Shows, etc. Put this engineering stuff before a jury and let the chips fall where they may.

    What bothers me with the Miss. cases is that punitive damage claims seem to be geting stricken with some regularity. Then, like Anita Lee’s recent article suggests, the amount of time it took the insurer to pay the claim means nothing. As you point out, how much can the insurer make by holding $500,000 for 3 years while the policyholder suffers for that same period?

    With respect to Katrina claims, I know I have said to myself many times, “If I knew then what I know now . . . “

  5. Sop, I don’t think we’ll see these as individual cases – IMO, this is McIntosh Part 2 – and they’ll settle without much ado. It could be that we might see another RICO, not from any of these cases, but from one/some of the others.

    I, too, am bothered with the time; but, is there not a 60-day time limit in MID regulation?

  6. What RICO means in the Ms. courts. Really Incorporable Court Operations. Real Incompetent Court Opinions. Real Inconceivable Court Occurrences. Does anyone feel that had various citations been used without claiming a RICO event perhaps this case would have went over just a little better. Face it even with hardcore evidence going against the best courts corporate America can buy off doesn’t offer much hope. It is, however, good to hear how these cases are being handled. It’s hard on folks to have their lives taken away at the stroke of a pen by someone immune to bad decisions intentional or not. Dismiss settles to much with to little effort and some times concern. Dismissal without prejudice goes along fine in thinking of more action. Claims can go on forever and just when you think you’ve got the proof needed BAM! Dismissed with prejudice. I’ve over heard lawyers refer to court battles as some type of game. How sad. In still wishing everyone the best please keep up the good works.

Leave a Reply

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