O’Bannon cites Corban transcript in Motion to Stay case against Nationwide

Honesty is the best policy – and, a hurricane policy written to exclude damage from a hurricane is honestly not the best policy.

Consequently, Counsel for O’Bannon filed a Motion to Stay O’Bannon v Nationwide pending the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Corban v USAA claiming, Nationwide further showed its “true intention” of unfair and unconscionable application of the ACC to exclude coverage to its insured during questioning from Chief Justice William L. Waller, Jr.:

JUSTICE WALLER: Do you agree – Nationwide was a  party to the Dickinson case. Do you agree with Judge Senter’s ruling in that?

MR. LANDAU: No, Your Honor. We respectfully do not. We think its inconsistent with Leonard case and the Bilby case and the Tuepker case from the Fifth Circuit.

JUSTICE WALLER: Would your company have paid the  same losses that USAA has voluntarily paid in the Corban  case?

MR. LANDAU: Our company [Nationwide] has –

JUSTICE WALLER: On wind damage? On wind damage?

MR. LANDAU: Your Honor, our company would not  feel compelled by the clause by the plain language to pay.

JUSTICE WALLER: So you wouldn’t?

MR. LANDAU: Our position is that we are not  required to pay those losses. Sometime, where we believe that you can really show that these pure wind losses  covered, then we’ll pay wind losses.

But we certainly don’t believe that the Plaintiffs can  be free to go out and get whatever expert they want and  get to a jury on these kind of issues, where we carry our burden of showing that, regardless of the sequencing, the water was sufficient to cause the loss. Because we believe that that’s why these clauses — that’s the whole  point of the clause.

And, that’s the “whole point” of O’Bannon’s motion: Continue reading “O’Bannon cites Corban transcript in Motion to Stay case against Nationwide”

Breaking: Gene Taylor sends letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano on Nationwide’s stunning admissions in Corban

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 (202) 253-1308

July 1, 2009

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.): In Court, Insurance Companies Provided Evidence of Fraud
Companies Admit They Shifted Hurricane Katrina Wind Claims to National Flood Insurance Program

Today, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) wrote Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to bring to her attention recent statements by insurance company attorneys that show beyond any doubt that companies shifted Hurricane Katrina claims to the National Flood Insurance Program that should have been covered by their own homeowners policies.

On June 9, 2009, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the interpretation of “anti-concurrent causation” (ACC) clauses in homeowners insurance policies. The attorney for Nationwide, Christopher Landau, told the Supreme Court that Nationwide applies the ACC clause to exclude coverage of all damage caused by hurricane winds if subsequent flooding was sufficient to cause the damage.

In response to questioning, Landau answered that even if a house were 95 percent destroyed by winds before any flooding, Nationwide would owe nothing to the policyholder if the flooding was severe enough to have destroyed the house. USAA Attorney Greg Copeland even claimed that it was the intent of Congress when enacting the National Flood Insurance Program that the federal government should pay for all damage caused the combination of wind and flooding.

Taylor letter to Napolitano 7-01-09 Continue reading “Breaking: Gene Taylor sends letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano on Nationwide’s stunning admissions in Corban”

SLABBED Daily – July 1

A McClatchy story on Monday’s Supreme Court decision on Cuomo v. Clearing House Association jolted me back into the SLABBED Daily routine: h/t Sun Herald

In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation’s financial crisis.

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority’s opinion and was joined by the court’s four liberal judges. (emphasis added)

Can you believe it?

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – July 1”

Condoms in the courtroom – State Farm wears protection, wants to %#!# you! EDITED

All hands on deck and four feet on the floor – counsel for plaintiff D. Neil Harris, Sr.  has filed a  Response in Opposition to State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order that reads like the legal version of Necking and Petting and How Far to Go.

Appropriately so, I might add, as the protective orders granted State Farm are like condoms in the courtroom- needed, of course, since State Farms wears protection because it wants to %#!# you.

Quite simply, State Farm, while acknowledging the Plaintiffs’ right to discover claims procedures, coverage interpretation documents and similar information in the prosecution of their claims for bad faith and fraudulent claims practices, wants to make sure that any evidence proving Plaintiffs’ allegations of institutional fraud is not made available to the public…

State Farm is asking this Court to enter a broad protective Order rendering virtually all the facts developed in this litigation regarding State Farm’s conduct confidential.

State Farm’s request is representative of a growing practice in our Courts of defendants seeking to limit evidence of misconduct in one case to that case, to prevent the public from being apprised of the type of conduct that defendant has undertaken in the community – and to burden plaintiffs and their lawyers with additional expense and time obligations to “re-develop” the same information in related litigation.

Limiting evidence of misconduct is indeed a growing practice – so much so that Hickman, Goza and Spragins, counsel for State Farm, sent Counsel for Plaintiffs an email, dated March 2, 2009, wherein they suggested entry of a consent protective Order incorrectly referred to as “standard” in Katrina litigation.

We’ll call the State Farm standard their missionary motion to make a distinction between that position and the more penetrating position State Farm counsel pulled from the KamaSutra of motion practice and proposed for the Harris litigation. Continue reading “Condoms in the courtroom – State Farm wears protection, wants to %#!# you! EDITED”