Locked and loaded with State Farm in crosshairs – Rigsbys plan to remove Renfroe before pulling trigger

What did Refroe “flip” is the $65,000 question – one that’s going to distract from the substance of the Rigsbys’ Consolidated Response to the Dispositive Motions unless we deal with it first.   The related text from the Response is below.  Read it and put it away until Renfroe v Rigsby, the Alabama case, is settled next month.  After all, that’s what State Farm will have to do as their reply is due before the settlement.

Over the past several months, Relators have agreed to dismiss voluntarily a number of claims and defendants in order to streamline this action. Most recently, Relators reached an agreement in principle to resolve all disputes with Renfroe. Upon execution of that agreement, Relators will seek consent to dismiss their claims against Renfroe and against the individual defendants Gene and Jana Renfroe. Thus, Relators oppose dismissal ONLY of the following claims:

  • State Farm Count I: Submitting false claims
    Count II: Making or using false records in support of false claims
    Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims
    Count V: Retaliatory discharge
  • Forensic Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims
  • Haag Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims
  • rigsby-qui-tam-33Over the weekend, I’ll be writing more about the Response and qui tam.  In this post, I’m setting the stage, so to speak, by removing potential distractions.

    One of the first that needs to go is the notion that Keri Rigsby adjusted the McIntosh claim.  As a supervisor, she accompanied the adjuster to the site; however, Cory Perry adjusted the McIntosh claim.

    On September 28, 2005, Cody Perry adjusted the McIntosh claim under the Continue reading “Locked and loaded with State Farm in crosshairs – Rigsbys plan to remove Renfroe before pulling trigger”

    The Sierra Club Chips in With Bermuda Reinsurers, Opposes HR 1264

    Ou good friend AM was kind enough to shoot us this hot off the press, press release from Gene’s office. Following the graphics is the original PR from Team Bermuda Reinsurance so our readers can decide for themselves who is telling the truth and who got a big fat donation. The people at the Sierra Club should not so easily sell their good names. If there was truth in labeling this shawdow organization would be called Bermuda Reinsurers united to price gouge American citizens. – sop

    Congressman Gene Taylor
    U.S.House of Representatives
    Fourth District of Mississippi


    2269 Rayburn HOB
    Washington, DC 20515
    (202) 225-5772
    Fax (202) 225-7074

    For Immediate release                                            Contact: Ana Maria Rosato
    March 13, 2009                                                           (202) 225-5772

    Gene Taylor Response to Insurance Industry-Backed
    Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy
    Environmental Groups Appear to do Industry Bidding

    Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy appears to be a front group funded by the Bermuda reinsurance industry and their investors and partners in the U.S. insurance industry. The lobbyists for the Sierra Club and American Rivers are selling out their members without giving them relevant information.

    In the first place, the Taylor bill does increase mitigation and requires stronger building codes. If the insurance-backed coalition truly wanted the federal government to encourage local governments to require stronger building codes, then the most effective way to do so is to make strong codes a condition of a federal insurance program, which is exactly what we do. Sec. 2 (2) of Rep. Taylor’s Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2009 specifically states the following.

    COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT- Multiperil coverage pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) and windstorm coverage pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) may not be provided in any area (or subdivision thereof) unless an appropriate public body shall have adopted adequate mitigation measures (with effective enforcement provisions) which the Director finds are consistent with the criteria for construction described in the International Code Council building codes relating to wind mitigation.

    Second, the idea that we are increasing federal liability for disaster costs is ridiculous. The federal government already pays for all the losses that are not covered by insurance, but without the advantage of collecting premiums to pay for those losses. As a result, the taxpayers—rather than insurance companies—footed bill. The extent to which insurance companies committed fraud against the taxpayers has yet to be determined. My website details evidence that suggest the insurance companies defrauded the federal government’s flood insurance program. [See Evidence of Fraud by Insurers Handling Katrina Losses With Both Wind and Flood Damage.] Continue reading “The Sierra Club Chips in With Bermuda Reinsurers, Opposes HR 1264”

    The ABA Journal is reporting on Kodrin

    And staff writer Martha Neil once again linked us. We’re Martha positive here at slabbed, here is the story:

    An award of punitive damages and attorney fees in a bad-faith case against an insurance company has been overturned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. was mistaken when it denied coverage for wind-based damage from Hurricane Katrina, wrongly attributing the destruction of a home to uncovered water damage. But the plaintiff homeowners, Michael and Judy Kodrin, didn’t establish that the insurer acted without a good-faith basis in denying coverage. Hence, although they are still entitled to an earlier $200,000 jury award for the wind damage to their home, they will no longer get additional punitive damages and an award of attorney fees for bad faith under the 5th Circuit decision, the Associated Press explains. Continue reading “The ABA Journal is reporting on Kodrin”

    Is it possible Berkshire Hathaway is insolvent Part Deux: Fitch Downgrades Warren

    The emperor has no clothes! Bloomberg has the story (H/T Russell):

    Billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. had its top-level AAA credit rating cut by Fitch Ratings, which cited concern about the potential for losses on the insurer’s equity and derivatives holdings.

    Buffett’s role as chief investment officer also puts the company at risk if he becomes unable to do the job, Fitch said in a statement. Fitch cut the so-called issuer default rating on Berkshire to AA+, and senior unsecured debt to AA. The insurance and reinsurance units kept their AAA status, with a negative outlook for all entities, Fitch said.

    “Fitch views this risk as unrelated to Mr. Buffett’s age, but rather Fitch’s belief that Berkshire’s record of outstanding long-term investment results and the company’s ability to identify and purchase attractive operating companies is intimately tied to Mr. Buffett,” Fitch said. Buffett is 78.

    Berkshire joins General Electric Co., which was downgraded by Standard & Poor’s today and lost its status as one of the remaining AAA companies in the U.S. Berkshire stock fell 35 percent in 12 months on concern that Buffett’s bets on derivatives — instruments he has called “financial weapons of mass destruction” — will crush profit at the firm. Continue reading “Is it possible Berkshire Hathaway is insolvent Part Deux: Fitch Downgrades Warren”