Bossier following compass – Agreed Order provides map

Bossier’s compass points toward the November trial:

…partial summary judgment…will streamline the presentation of the case and clarify the issues for the jury.

Judge Walker’s recent Agreed Order, on the other hand, gives Bossier a map – leading me to conclude there are times when:

if you don’t give State Farm an inch, the Company will give you a mile.

Of course, there is also the distinct possibility of Judge Senter’s Order modifying the related portion of an earlier Order of Magistrate Judge Walker had something to do with that:

This cause of action is between Plaintiff and Defendant arising under a direct contractual relationship, with Defendant owing Plaintiff certain obligations, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the legal responsibility to fairly investigate and evaluate his claims and respond appropriately.

Bossier map
A google map created to show the agreed to boundaries stated in Judge Walker's Order with the location of the Bossier property added and the relative distance to the McIntosh property noted.

Whatever the reason, the outcome was clear  – Bossier’s counsel and counsel for State Farm were able to reach an agreement:

after referral from the District Court regarding the production of other State Farm claim files near the Bossier property, and the Court having discussed same with the parties, and now being advised that the parties have reached an agreement as to the appropriate area from which the other claim files will be selected now enters this Agreed Order.

The appropriate area agreed to by the parties is bordered on the west by Sharon Hills Drive; north by Brasher Road; and east by Waters View Drive.  The northern shore of the Back Bay of Biloxi provides the border to the south.

Judge Walker’s Order indicates he also set some boundaries:

Continue reading “Bossier following compass – Agreed Order provides map”

Corban v USAA – counting by the calendar

It was not as if I had forgotten about Corban; but Bam – a virus called anti-concurrent cause – Bam – the ACC virus continued – and I’m thinking Corban every day and not just on hand-down Thursday. FireShot capture #042 - 'June 2009 Calendar – United States' - www_timeanddate_com_calendar_monthly_html_year=2009&month=6&country=1

You’d think after Nationwide spilled the beans, the Supremes would be in a hurry to protect policyholders with cases still in litigation; but, then again, maybe they think with all the beans on the table, it’s such a no-brainer they can take their time.

One justice asked Nationwide whether ACC would exclude coverage in a case where a home was 95% destroyed by wind before any flooding…According to…[Nationwide]…it does not matter what actually caused the damage.  If the subsequent flooding would have caused it, the damage is covered by NFIP and not Nationwide. FireShot capture #043 - 'July 2009 Calendar – United States' - www_timeanddate_com_calendar_monthly_html_year=2009&month=7&country=1

On the other hand,  the Supremes may be like Nationwide’s policyholders – in a state of shock after learning Nationwide is on Nationwide’s side. Continue reading “Corban v USAA – counting by the calendar”

good-ol-boys gone wild but Judge Vance in no mood for a parte

When SLABBED reported Judge Vance’s well thought out Order on proof of loss and segregation of damages in Imperial Trading v Travels, it seemed as if the case would soon come to an uneventful end.

The trial ended on August 13th; but, the end was anything but uneventful.  At 10:00am the morning of the 14th, Judge Vance had counsel for both parties back in court – James Garner for plaintiff Imperial Trading and Ralph Hubbard for defendant Travelers.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise, please. Court is in session. Please be seated.

THE COURT: Where’s Mr. Garner?

MR. FRANCIS: He is on his way, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He is late.

MR. FRANCIS: Do you want me to call him on his phone?

THE COURT: You better tell him to get over here right now.

MR. FRANCIS: He is in the courthouse coming up.

THE COURT: Okay. Good.

(WHEREUPON Mr. Garner entered the courtroom.)…

THE COURT: It saddens me to have to have this hearing this morning, but last night Mr. Garner called my husband to report on statements by jurors to his clients suggesting some impropriety in the verdict. This is an improper ex parte communication, and it shall never happen again. Continue reading “good-ol-boys gone wild but Judge Vance in no mood for a parte”