However, that doesn’t stop Sam’s man of integrity, Robert Hartwig’s and his spin meisters at the Insurance (mis)Information Institute, from dismissing a recent Consumer Reports survey that found half of the Katrina impacted residents that responded had trouble with their insurer with a full 26% saying they were under paid. The National Underwriter has the story and related III spin (h/t Editilla):
Half of Consumer Reports’ readers who filed insurance claims resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 said they had problems with their insurer, the magazine reported.
In the September issue of the consumer watchdog’s magazine, the organization says 26 percent of its readers also complained that they were paid too little for their claims.
During the claims adjustment process, and prior to filing suit on August 20, 2008, Plaintiff provided State Farm with an affidavit of his nearby neighbor, Mr. Ziz, who witnessed the total destruction of the outbuilding and fence prior to the arrival of water.
Joseph Ziz signed his affidavit January 08, 2008, and State Farm continued to deny the Bossier’s claim over the next eight months until the Bossiers finally filed suit just a few days before the SOL on the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
Counsel also attached the May 11, 2009, recorded statement State Farm took of Mr. Ziz confirming his eye witness account (Exhibit 3); and Mr. Ziz’s sworn deposition testimony given July 9,2009, that confirms without contradiction his eyewitness account of the destruction of the outbuilding and fence prior to the arrival of water(Exhibit 4).
Thanks to a comment on the Order from eagle eye Shirley Heflin, legal secretary for Chip Merlin for 20 years before she became a full-time student, I caught an important connection that I’d missed earlier.
And my personal favorite part of this is: “The privilege claimed for all the documents reviewed by the Court is “anticipation of litigation.” … Documents prepared in the ordinary course of business are not protected as prepared in anticipation of litigation…”
If it were allowed, it would mean that State Farm was “investigating” a claim with an eye toward litigation for who knows how long? From the inception of the claim?…No, that’s not the way its supposed to be.
I pulled Walker’s Order and checked dates in a footnote to her “favorite part”.
1The emails are dated between March 6, 2008 and June 19, 2008