If the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over expecting a different result

Then you gotta wonder about the thought process involved in pushing Leonard lite to the 5th Circuit.

I don’t know if this caseĀ  involvesĀ bad wind-water lawyering or an ornery client but you know they didn’t read Slabbed before wasting time rehashing concurrent causation with Edith Jones.

sop

3 thoughts on “If the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over expecting a different result

  1. NRB

    Is she serious?

    Somebody needs to lock her in a room with a Louisiana Insurance Law Treatise and force her to read it a thousand times.

    How did the plaintiffs’ lawyer(s) not argue La.R.S. 22:658.2? One thing I noticed is that the policy was apparently a named perils, not all risks policy.

    Oh well….

    Reply
  2. NRB

    I can’t wait to read and see how the insurers perverse even this limited ruling.

    Why would anyone more than 3 years after Katrina and Rita, still be arguing that storm surge is covered under something other than a flood policy?

    Reply
  3. sop81_1

    You wonder why even fight on that ground NRB thus the title of this post.

    Now if we could only get Edith Jones to take time to really understand anti concurrent causation.

    sop

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>