Breaking: State Farm files for mistrial in Bossier

I am locked up in a meeting this afternoon and just about spit my coffee when I saw the latest on Bossier.  In short, the Farm knows they are toast in Bossier and are now officially grasping for straws. Anita Lee, who is now offically part of the news cycle, reports for the Sun Herald:

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. denied State Farm’s motion for a mistrial before a jury returned to the courtroom for a fourth day of testimony Thursday in a Katrina case, Bossier vs. State Farm.

State Farm attorneys sought the mistrial because of an article in Thursday morning’s Sun Herald. The article reported on Senter’s suggestion that the attorneys get with their client, State Farm, and try to settle the case.

Senter polled the jury and found two of the eight jurors had been told that an article was in the newspaper but they did not hear anything about the content.

State Farm attorneys had asked that Senter hear the motion in private, but he refused.

“This is a public court,” Senter said. “It belongs to the citizens. I believe in hearing everything in open court if I can.”

State Farm began its case after the jury was seated. The original adjuster on the claim testified that she found an eight-foot water line on the house and paid for wind damage only above that water line.

We’ll be back with more with on the adjuster tomorrow but she took some good LSD if she saw an 8 foot water line at the Bossier’s residence.


5 thoughts on “Breaking: State Farm files for mistrial in Bossier”

  1. Traffic here on Slabbed is very busy today so we want to bid welcome to any new readers from the heart of Katrina ground zero.



  2. I would move for a directed verdict on coverage if I were plaintiff. It appears to me that Senter would grant it despite the garbage spewed in Broussard.

    Also, Guice should be jumping for you if the adjuster stated he or she did not pay for anything below the “water-line”—- that is a million dollar answer for a plaintiff.

  3. I TOLD you that Senter’s comments “on-the-record” were “a bit unusual”. Now we can all “blame” Anita Lee for giving SF an appealable issue. And how the “f%@k” did the 2 jurors “hear” about Lee’s article? Did SF (or SF’s surrogates) intentionally “contaminate” the jury, ie. “tamper” with the jury? WHERE IS THE GODDAMNED FBI?

  4. Thinking “more” about this, in retrospect, to anyone who is “litigation savvy”, this was all SO-O-O “predictable”. But the opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings. I just don’t know what tune she will be playng. WHERE IS THE GODDAMNED FBI?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *