What is the cost of not knowing?

The most delightful little boy one could ever hope to know has grown into a most remarkable man. 

Wright Thompson is a senior writer for ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected] He was born in Clarksdale, Miss., and lives in Oxford.

I’ve been reading Wright since he learned to write and enjoying every word.  I happened by folo earlier and, as luck would have it,  someone had just posted a comment with the link to his Ghosts of Mississippi,

As Wright weaves  the story of the integration of Ole Miss into the 1962 football season, you can feel the shame and smell the bourbon.

When I was 5 or 6, because of my dad’s political activism in the Mississippi Delta, local white supremacists burned a cross in our front yard. My parents had a decision to make: Wake me up or let me sleep. They chose sleep. On that night, hate and fear would not be passed to another generation. Continue reading “What is the cost of not knowing?”

Adjusting the adjuster defendants in Katrina qui tam litigation…

While the 5th Circuit reinstated the Branch Consultant’s qui tam claim reasoning Rigsby was no longer the “first to file” after dismissing a defendant named in both suits, I see a clearer distinction in the two cases based on the composition of the group of named defendants in each.

The Rigsby sisters, for example, cite only their employing adjuster, E.A. Renfroe; but, include a group of engineering firms associated in the claims handling process:

Defendant Structures Group, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc, Haag Engineering Company, Jade Engineering, Exponent Failure Analysis, Forensic Analysis Engineering Corporation are all collectively referred to herein as “Engineering Defendants.”

Earlier this year, Judge Senter granted the Relators’ motions…to dismiss this action as to Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc.; Jade Engineering; Exponent, Inc.; and Structures Group – leaving only Haag and Forensic as named “Engineering Defendants” as the case moves forward.

The qui tam claim filed by the Branch Consultants, on the other hand, names no “engineering defendants” but has a named group of “adjuster defendants”:

Defendant Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc…Defendant Crawford & Company…Defendant NCA Group, Inc…Defendant Simsol Insurance Services, Inc…Defendant Allied Claims, Inc…Together, these are the adjuster defendants.

Colonial Claims Corp., the sixth of the named defendants was cited by the 5th in the footnote listing of Appellees; as was Allied Claims, an adjuster defendant dismissed by Branch in October 2007 [a]fter due diligence investigation and discussions with Allied.

What little I know about the group of Plaintiff adjusters is a patchwork centered with this information from their qui tam claim.

Branch Consultants is an insurance and construction consulting firm that has been retained by numerous insureds to re-examine adjustments done by the WYO insurers’ in-house adjusters or other adjuster agencies employed by them following Hurricane Katrina. The principals and consultants of Branch Consultants include experienced adjuster and construction personnel with many decades of construction and construction-estimating experience.

One source added there are four unidentified adjusters known as the Branch Consultants; another referred to them as former adjusters; and a third indicated they were retired.  A group of Zorro-wannabe plaintiff adjusters might bear more scrutiny if I weren’t so interested in the  capacity of the remaining five “adjuster defendants”. Continue reading “Adjusting the adjuster defendants in Katrina qui tam litigation…”

“The only reason for time is so everything doesn’t happen at once” – Rigsby qui tam, Renfroe v Rigsby, and Scruggs’ Appeal to 11th Circuit

If faced with the March calendar of the Rigsby sisters, even Einstein would surely have wondered if everything wasn’t happening at once (says Nowdy hopefully after struggling to post the third of these three events).

March 11:  Oral Argument 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Appeal of Civil Contempt filed by Dick Scruggs re: Renfroe v Rigsby (Alabama)

March 12: Rigsby Qui Tam Response

Relators’ consolidated Response to the dispositive motions shall be due no later than 3/12/2009 Re: Text only Order granting Relators’ Motion to Extend Time to File Brief with NOTICE of Endorsement of Extension of Time Requested filed by State Farm. Continue reading ““The only reason for time is so everything doesn’t happen at once” – Rigsby qui tam, Renfroe v Rigsby, and Scruggs’ Appeal to 11th Circuit”