Insurer defendants attempt detour of Road Home

Having discovered the detour attempted by the insurer defendants of Louisiana’s Road Home litigation – a petition to the Fifth Circuit with leave to file an Interlocutory Appeal granted the 19th of this month – SLABBED turns to the orders of Judge Duval for background on the issues under Appeal.

The Louisiana Road Home program is a grant program funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and operated by the Louisiana Recovery Authority. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress appropriated funds for disaster relief to be administered through HUD’s Community Development Block Grant Program. HUD distributed some of these funds to Louisiana, which in turn created the Road Home program to distribute these funds as grants to homeowners. Road Home grants are designed to compensate homeowners up to $150,000.00 for structural damage, exclusive of contents damages, caused by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.

Katrina litigation in Louisiana has suffered from the Fifth Circuit’s overly broad definition of “flood” and off-the-wall ruling on anti-concurrent causation, as well as the heavily promoted image of “Katrina the flood”.   However, Sop will likely be as surprised as I to learn, Despite the request of this Court, the State could not point to any federal statute or regulation governing the Road Home program that could create a legal subrogation.

Congress appropriated disaster assistance funds to existing federal programs, including HUD’s CDBG program, subject to rules governing the allowable use of program funds.  The CDBG rules required each recipient state to develop and submit a plan for approval and the federal approval process includes a review to ensure a plan is consistent with related federal law.

Consistent with federal law, the Road Home program prohibits providing any relief Continue reading “Insurer defendants attempt detour of Road Home”

And now the sequence of events in no particular order – a Katrina litigation update

So much happened while I was out last week that the Dan Rather quote makes a good introduction to this update on Katrina litigation reporting the sequence of [selected] events [from last week] in no particular order:

Watson v Nationwide:

Nationwide may not be able to determine the sequencing of the loss until the event is over; but, Judge Senter had no problem determining the sequence, deciding the event was over, and issuing an Order on Nationwide’s Motion for an Extension of Time…to Take Remand-Related Discovery-

Nationwide has asserted that the non-diverse defendants in this action were fraudulently joined to defeat this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. This is an issue upon which Nationwide, as the removing party, has the burden of proof, and an issue on which Nationwide expected to prevail at the time this case was removed. Yet in the ten months that have elapsed since removal, Continue reading “And now the sequence of events in no particular order – a Katrina litigation update”