Read ’em while they’re hot – briefs filed by State Farm, Haag, Forensic, and Rigsbys post-hearing in the Rigsby qui tam

keep in mind the purpose of this hearing. We’re dealing here with summary motions, we’re dealing here with is there a genuine issue of material fact that will justify this case going forward to a full-blown trial. Would y’all like to brief that for me in writing rather than come back this afternoon and argue?  What about it, Plaintiff?

Who wouldn’t rather write a brief than “come back this afternoon” on a Friday? No wonder Judge Senter is so well-liked.  The post-hearing briefs were filed directly with Judge Senter, as ordered, and did not appear on PACER until today – the result of a State Farm motion SLABBED reported in up their sleeve or in their briefs – State Farm comes up with another Eddie Haskell motion in Rigsby qui tam

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this Action at the trial court level, there likely will be an appeal by one or more Parties and “[u]nder this Circuit’s general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”

Had State Farm said no more in Defendants’ Joint Motion to Require All Parties to File their Previously Submitted Respective Post-Hearing Briefs in the Record, there might have been a different title; but, this paragraph followed:

Further, as a general proposition, the Fifth Circuit “is barred from considering filings outside the record on appeal….” Accordingly, it is especially important to all Parties’ respective ability to prosecute a potential appeal to have all post-hearing summary judgment briefs in the record.

And, then, there was this gotcha:

Defendants…specifically pray that the Parties be required to file in the record the exact post-hearing briefs previously e-mailed the Court, without any changes, additions or subtractions whatsoever.

So, here they are without any changes, additions or subtractions whatsoever.  I suggest starting with the Risby brief as it responds to all three defendants’ briefs and gives context to their arguments and, then, finishing with State Farm’s Rebuttal.

Relator’s Consolidated Post-Hearing Brief

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Post-Summary Judgment Hearing Memorandum

Haag Engineering Co.’s Joinder in State Farm’s Post-Hearing Brief and Submission of its Individual Post-Hearing Brief

Defendant Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corporation’s Post-Summary Judgment Hearing Memorandum

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Post-Hearing Rebuttal Memorandum

What is it State Farm has up their sleeve and in their brief ? Did Judge Senter take it out?

[scribd id=18575599 key=key-2ebcuajocxqrrw3njvjm]

9 thoughts on “Read ’em while they’re hot – briefs filed by State Farm, Haag, Forensic, and Rigsbys post-hearing in the Rigsby qui tam”

  1. Footnote 5 from relator’s consolidated Post-Hearing Brief is very interesting to me.

    5 In fact, the waterline was derived from a FEMA high water mark just 50 feet from the McIntosh house and the elevation of the McIntoshes

  2. Also is there a timeline for when the adjusters got data from State Farm on flood levels in the area and where that data came from Ex. Haag vs Fed’s.

    Would be good to know when fed’s info about flood levels come out for area vs. when data that was used. What did State Farm do in cases when fed’s and their engineering firm’s data conflicted. etc etc.

    Seems measuring the flood levels was the first chance State Farm or Haag got to defraud the government and it should be looked at closely.

  3. One more point. If the agents who examined the houses were given false flood levels to determine the amount of flood damage than the agent could have made a good faith estimate of flood damage, which was, in fact, false because the data they were using was not accurate.

    When were flood level estimates given to State Farm by Haag. At the time of their general report or was this data given to State Farm before the general report due to its importance in adjusting flood claims. So maybe the adjuster was given false data and came up with false conclusions without malice on their part. Like they say with computers—garbage in; garbage out.

    I think the flood measurements will be key in helping figure out IF and HOW the fed’s were taken advantage of by their business partner State Farm.

  4. Well, I’ll be, Ashton (Atty O’Dwyer) remember in your prior post where you pointed out that Jdg. Senter SHOULD NOT HAVE granted SF’s Motion to Dismiss the Rigbsy sister’s SJ clm regarding wrongful termination (and/or retaliatory conduct)??? And remember how you so competently pointed out that what he did on that particular motion was not his function as a Judge on a SJ mot issue?? And remember how I replied to you that I – just a little ole’ lay person/Legal Secretary in Tpa., Fla., EVEN KNOWS that the Court is just supposed to determine whether “…there is a genuine factual issue – i.e., same as a difference of opinion – which renders the matter suitable to proceed to trial” ??? REMEMBER THAT ASHTON??

    WELL, I’LL BE DAMNED, as cited above, Jdg. Senter announces in open Court that he (after all) INDEED KNOWS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE REGARDING A S.J. MOTION:

    “…keep in mind the purpose of this hearing. We

  5. Just finished reading “Realtors’ Consolitated Post-Hearing Brief.” Better than a John Grisham novel !! But this “story” is true. Great Brief ! Very well written and easy to understand which, for obvious reasons, is SO IMPORTANT. 🙂


  6. So glad to see you! It really was a great brief. It just goes to show you than real men are respectful.

  7. Nice to see & hear from you to, Nowdy; I was quietly hoping you were taking a break…but I”m betting you were researching !! Plz rest. WE NEED YOU !! 🙂


  8. Not so resilient that I can tolerate being a hare of many colors, I’m hopping off for time away to do something about that just as soon as I find my keys!

Comments are closed.