Unlike the earlier pro se who appeared to think legal representation was not needed for a judge to do his job, the owners of the Stink Shak feel they can not afford counsel according to their Response to State Farm’s motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
We were hopeful mediation would resolve the issue…We made an attempt to lower our offer from $55,000 to $40,000 …the Mediator suggested we get an attorney due to the complexity of the Court’s procedures. It is not possible to attain an attorney for the amount of our loss.
That may very well be true as State Farm spares no cost in litigating Katrina claims and an attorney would be reluctant to charge these plaintiffs, a married couple, the cost.
According to their complaint, she is disabled and he is retired and in poor health.
Our combined monthly SS income is $1600. Out of apparent necessity, we opened the store to meet our growing obligation of taxes, insurance premiums, medication, etc. On August 25, 2005 Hurricane Katrina destroyed the store. We were fully insured with State Farm Insurance. I met with the adjuster approximately two months later. It was obvious a tornado had hit the building.
The Plaintiff goes on to describe several indications of tornado damage – windows blow outward toward the parking lot, for example – and claims the damage to the building allowed looters to enter and take most of the inventory. He also mentions there were “independent witnesses” and then says:
I also told the adjuster that it was imperative we settle this case ASAP as our livelihood depends on the income.
In spite of volumes of communication, State Farm stood firm and said it was water and our policy was negated. They did not interview the witness that was so important to our case. After reopening the store 20 months later, I looked up this important witness. His testimony was that early in the storm a large tornado traveled down our street. It blew down Daddye’s restaurant, hit our store in which a loud explosion was heard causing them to look in the direction of the Stink Shak in which they witness the roof blown up and come crashing down.
He was able to get State Farm to interview the witness and pay the claim for lost inventory. The current claim is for loss of income and punitive damage “for State Farm’s irresponsible handling of this case…not to mention the rudeness of dealing with State Farm”.
The Complaint is difficult to read and I’ve had to retype the portions I’ve posted – but I believe State Farm paid the owners of the Stink Shak $5000 for “loss of income” on a policy that reportedly covered lost income for a year. According to the Plaintiff’s, the store had earned $45,000 January – August 2005.
In my off-blog life, I frequently encounter similarly challenging-to-read documents but absolutely no idea what one would sell in a “Stink Shak”. However, pulling what I can from the documents, I believe State Farm is calculating lost income by deducting cost of inventory from the sales. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, are trying to explain they reinvested most of what they made and grew the business.
If State Farm wants to take Sam Friedman’s advice and polish its image, this is the case to give it a try.