Can you post Senter’s Order from August 10? Order 344. I’d like to see the “criteria”.
In my hurried response to this request from SLABBED reader James Barbieri, I provided the link to Judge Senter’s Memorandum Opinion. However, both the Order and Opinion contain the criteria Judge Senter established for the list of claims he has ordered State Farm to deliver for his in camera review:
- The insured property did not fall within any of the three categories of storm damage for which FEMA approved payment of SFIP limits, i.e. insured dwellings that were not left as slabs, pilings, or empty shells; and
- For which SFIP limits were paid on the grounds the property was a constructive total loss; and
- For which no “stick built” or Exactimate estimation of the flood damage was made before the SFIP limits were paid.
Mr. Barbieri also requested the Attachments to Maurstad’s letter, which I’ve linked here as Memo and attachments Expedited Claim Handling Process – and added:
I’m also very interested in starting a discussion on the Maurstad letter. There are some cases that involved legal issues subsequent to waiving Proof of Loss, and it looks like State Farm’s best defense will be the governments alteration of contractual obligations, and particularly Maurstad’s comment that “FEMA will not seek reimbursement from the company when a subsequent review identifies overpayments resulting from the company’s proper use of the FEMA depth data…”
I would assume that means that a home totally destroyed my wind, that is in the “in” area…..i.e. flooded, could apply for maximum flood coverage and the government would not request subsequent reimbursement after the actual damage cause was documented.
Is Maurstad’s letter amending the SFIP legal? If so, Senter has to address it….will Maurstad be subpoenaed to testify? How about Shortly and Johnson?
Brian Martin, Policy Director for Congressman Gene Taylor, responded with a comment including this interesting point:
The expedited procedures memo may be State Farm’s best defense but it may also expose them to a broader case…If SF brings in Shortley and/or Maurstad to justify paying flood limits on houses that had plenty of evidence for a proper adjustment, that would seem to bring into play all the evidence that State Farm contacted NFIP to initiate the expedited procedure, drafted the memo, and built a fraudulent scheme around it to pay and close flood claims without investigation and then use acceptance of flood checks against wind claims. If all of this is allowed in court finally will the DOJ finally notice? Then they could finally put the focus on Maurstad and Shortley and challenge the legality of the memo and all the fraud that was shielded by it.
Although we’ve talked about the Expedited Procedure in the context of related cases, I don’t recall a post on the subject and it could not be more timely given the upcoming trial of the Rigsby qui tam claim.
UPDATED with the related FEMA correspondence in two pages shown below and with all three pages linked here:
Linking per my comment to James 10/06/09: Judge Walker’s Ordercompelling the Rigsbys to provide State Farm with the evidentiary disclosure filed with the Justice Department.