With xxx, pro se v Lexington on my mind, I remembered this post from Insurance Law Hawaii. Mississippi law falls short of the protection Louisiana law provides; however, it is my understanding that insurers here have an obligation similar to Washington State’s “respond promptly”.
the Washington Supreme Court recently held the insured could pursue bad faith claims for delay in processing the claim even when there is no coverage under the policy. See St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, Inc., 2008 Wash. LEXIS 1055 (Wash. Nov. 26, 2008).
….the issue was whether the insured could pursue common law bad faith and claims under the Consumer Protection Act based on St. Paul’s delay in handling the claim…
It took nine months for St. Paul to deny coverage…
The suit for declaratory relief alleged St. Paul violated a number of insurance Continue reading “Delay declared “Bad faith” action on uncovered claim”
I’m seldom at a loss for words; but, then again, none of mine are really needed.
The complaint (typed by yours truly) follows the photo of the heading from page one. All identifying information has been blocked or removed.
Comes now, Plaintiff, xxxxxxxxx, Pro se, and for cause of action against the Defendant, Lexington Insurance would state: On June 1, 2005 I purchased an insurance policy which included Hurricane damage.
On August 29, 2005, Katrina rendered my home unlivable, and it was condemed by the City of xxxxx.
I had paid the premium for a year in advance and felt certain I would have no problem. At first the agents sent out by the company agreed with me. However, after they spoke with their home office things changed. Continue reading “77-year-old Lexington (AIG) policyholder acting pro-se files hand-written complaint with federal court”
Under the circumstances, playing a guessing game with the USA doesn’t sound like a barrel of fun – nor does the need to guess exactly what the governments claims you’ve done qualify as any known form of justice.
Consequently, attorney Joe Sam Owen, counsel for Brent Warr, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars.
Under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court may direct the filling of a Bill of Particulars when necessary to prevent unfair surprise at trial. The Defendant joins herein his argument of law in accordance with U. S. v. Linn, 889 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1988 ) which supports this Motion that the Bill of Particulars is necessary to aid in the preparation of the defense to Counts 13 – 16.
Owen understands games. In fact, he played one rather well, as did Jackson attorney Frank Trapp, newly enrolled counsel for Mrs. Warr; but, that was 40 years and a hotty-toddy ago for these two former Ole Miss Rebels. Trapp set the 1968 season record for tackles with more assists than than Patrick Willis (2005); and, true to form, he filed a Joinder to Gregory Brent Warr’s Motion for Bill of Particulars today.
The Warr’s request is not at all unreasonable. After all, counts 13-16 of the Government’s indictment, the subject of the motion, are related to the Warr’s homeowner’s policy, a personal contractual relationship with a privately owned business – Lexington Insurance, a subsidiary of bailout beneficiary AIG. Continue reading “Like a game of 20 questions – the Warr Indictment”