While I’m waiting on mine with mint and lime, let’s pick up the transcript of the oral arguments in Corban v USAA and go in a different direction than we did in SLABBED Daily yesterday.
Justice Pierce brought up the subject of payment for flood damage with both parties.
JUSTICE PIERCE: Real quick, in your brief, you said that you want to use the flood damage receipt by the Corbans to meet your burden [of proof]. How do you propose to do that?
MR. COPELAND: Well, when we talked about this before, one point that did not come up – it came up, but not at the same time – it is, as we clearly accept, if the Corbans come in on the structure — keep this on the structure. If the Corbans come in and say, ‘We have suffered a direct physical loss, ‘ and it’s a request for admission, we would readily admit that. We know they did. And it’s a tragedy that it happened. They can sit back down.
So really we come in with the burden of proof with that established, as we accept the burden of proof. And where that is an issue, and where it comes up in the courtroom is when you get experts that want to say that there was no flood damage. And it simply does not benefit the pursuit of justice for a party, whether it be USAA or the Corbans, or anyone else, to make a claim and accept $350,000 in flood damage, and then put on a paid witness to say that that did not occur. That simply does not benefit the trying to find what’s true and right.
There has to be a name for what Mr. Copeland is describing other than “slimball”. Let’s see if Judy Guice comes up with it when she answers the same question. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – July 3”