…While Defendant offers the explanation that it was unsuccessful in its attempts to reach this purported eyewitness to obtain information concerning Plaintiff’s claims, it fails to acknowledge the fact that this individual was one of its policyholders for whom it had contact information and knew his whereabouts.
In addition, an initial payment for covered losses on the principal dwelling was based on a speculative estimate. Subsequent payments for damages occurred after Plaintiff retained a lawyer and most were made after litigation had been instituted…
It is critical to keep in mind that “[a]n insurance carrier’s duty to promptly pay a legitimate claim does not end because a lawsuit has been filed against it for nonpayment of it. Put more bluntly, if you owe a debt the duty to pay does not end when you are sued for nonpayment of it.”
In this very brief but to the point page-and-a-half Order, Judge Senter provides a short summary:
The tension in the record is between the damages sustained by Plaintiff and the manner in which the various claims under his insurance policy were handled by Defendant. Plaintiff claims, inter alia, that Defendant failed to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of damages to his home and appurtenant structure, and that Defendant delayed payment of covered losses.
The primary, though not sole, area of concern is the ultimate unconditional payment of the dwelling extension coverage for a separate detached structure (but not the contents located in it) four years after the storm. While the underlying issue on the dwelling extension is treated in Plaintiff’s own motion for partial summary judgment (filed at a time when no payment had been made), Defendant pays little heed to this aspect in the present motion.
In What’s the score? Can’t tell with Senter pitching – looks like Bossier still holding bat SLABBED quoted the final paragraph in Judge Senter’s Order and concluded Bossier was still holding the bat.
To repeat the essence of what was said in this Court’s…order involving another challenge to a decision by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant owes Plaintiff certain obligations under its insurance contract, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the legal responsibility to fairly and thoroughly investigate and evaluate all claims and respond appropriately. The Court will address those issues in due course, especially with respect to Defendant’s…Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
State Farm’s Motion was for partial summary judgment on punitive and extra-contractual damages and, true to his word, Judge Senter’s Order addressed defendant State Farm’s legal responsibility to fairly and thoroughly investigate and evaluate all claims and respond appropriately.
In this Order, he also looks to the future:
It should be pointed out that Broussard, supra, relied upon by Defendant, suggests that consequential or extra-contractual damages may be appropriate even when punitive damages are not. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in United American Insurance Co. v. Merrill held that attorney’s fees are justified where punitive damages are awarded.
Under the entirety of the circumstances and pursuant to Rule 56 it is not for the Court to weigh the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses, but to consider the evidence submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the motion and grant all reasonable inferences to the non-moving party, in this instance the Plaintiff . In other words, that evidence and those inferences drawn from it are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
The parties should understand that this does not mean, in the final analysis, that the jury will be given a punitive damages instruction or one that deals with extra-contractual damages.
For present purposes, Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of punitive and extra-contractual damages is not well taken.
Once again, Judge Senter should be taken at his word – the trial will be a different ballgame.
Reasoned precisely as it should be except for one thing – why does SF get to skate on denying, delaying and defending under what amounts to false pretenses? It’s not enough to overrule an obviously frivolous summary judgment motion. Until courts start exacting a penalty for falsely denying, delaying and defending a case, this will never stop. When an insurer is caught in a lie (e.g. can’t find their own p/h who’s a witness), the court should on its own stand up for the integrity of the court system and levy a punishment.
Gotta be one of Judge Walker’s fair haired State Farm lawyers like Spragins or Banahan Juriscribe. These guys peddled this crap to the court despite being busted for unethical behavior in Kuehn and continue to feel free to abuse the court system to the detriment of the plaintiffs who are still waiting for State Farm to honor their all perils contract 4 years after Katrina.
Until the courts begin treating corporate defense counsel on par with plaintiffs counsel and enforce sanctions for this type of frivilious BS expect it to continue. Simply put these shady State Farm lawyers have no reason to quit until then.
sop
Mullins from Banahan’s group represents State Farm in Bossier.