A Kuehn Prequel Courtesy of Anita Lee at the Sun Herald

To give our readers a look back at Kuehn and how State Farm made up the rules as they went along in how they adjusted claims after Katrina lets visit with Anita Lee and a story she wrote back in May of 2006 on the Kuehns battle to get State Farm to honor their own policy provisions. An interesting sideline is the fact the Farm used George Dale and his screwed up mediation program as the reason to deny a valid policy provision. The article still exists on the internet courtesy of CorpWatch:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. refuses to engage in the appraisal process to resolve Hurricane Katrina claims, even though its own policy mandates appraisal on demand when the amount of an insured loss is in dispute.

Instead, records show, the company is urging policyholders to settle disputes through a mediation program sponsored by the Mississippi Department of Insurance and funded by insurers.

Two attorneys, one who was personally denied appraisal and another whose clients have been turned down, think they know why.

“State Farm is just plundering and victimizing its policyholders in the mediation process,” said Ocean Springs attorney Earl Denham. “That’s why they’re doing this. If you get in the appraisal process, they’re not going to be able to do that because somebody else makes the decision.”

Denham represents Henry and June Kuehn of Ocean Springs, who asked State Farm about appraisal after the company offered them only $10,765.48, minus depreciation and deductible, to cover the wind damage to their waterfront home.

A woman who identified herself as Tina, in a State Farm catastrophe office, told Kuehn in a conversation he taped April 17: “That’s what our management is saying. We’re not offering appraisal at all because mediation overrides it.” Continue reading “A Kuehn Prequel Courtesy of Anita Lee at the Sun Herald”

SLABBED Daily – April 28 (a MRGO update)

If my computer cooperates, we’ll have a MRGO update and a morning edition of the SLABBED Daily – but the way things went yesterday, that’s a big IF.

The first item –  Minute Entry Pertains to: MRGO, RobinsonMinute Entry Pertains to: MRGO, Robinson – tells us the issue raised in the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum reported in the April 24th  SLABBED Daily was settled before the end of the day it was filed (April 23):

At the close of testimony on this day, trial counsel met for a status conference concerning Plaintiffs’ Memorandum… After a full discussion concerning the parties’ positions concerning these issues and the Government’s averring that it was not its intention to contend that the LPV structures were improperly designed or did not perform as expected, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked that the memorandum be withdrawn.

Item two is brand new!  However, I suspect Motion to Compel Discovery re: Reliance Materials of Defendant’s Expert Bruce Ebersole was similarly addressed after Court today.

At the heart of the current dispute is Mr. Ebersole’s failure to produce a series of calculations upon which he based his opinions. At deposition, it was pointed out to Mr. Ebersole that there was substantial concern about the validity of his calculations in “modeling” his storm surge hydrographs. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – April 28 (a MRGO update)”

On your side – not if you’re Helen Politz: Politz v Nationwide

politz-2...Mrs. Politz, who is sixty-seven years old, has lost everything she owned, has moved three times since Hurricane Katrina, undergone open-heart surgery, taken care of her terminally ill husband until he ultimately died during this litigation, and has had to come out of retirement and go back to work to make ends meet due to Nationwide’s denial of her claim…Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Authorities (page 2).

Politz v Nationwide was introduced to SLABBED readers in a post of randomly selected Nationwide and State Farm policyholder cases in Southern District Federal Court.  A more detailed review was presented several days later following an Order issued by Judge Senter.

Although covered in the post referenced above, a review of what was learned about the Politz claim from Judge Senter’s Memorandum Opinion of the Order will be helpful to the discussion of Mrs. Politz’s claim for mental and emotional distress: Continue reading “On your side – not if you’re Helen Politz: Politz v Nationwide”