O-U-T spells out goes you – State Farm responds to Provost Umphrey's interest in Rigsby Qui Tam

Hopefully bellesouth and/or Sop have fresher eyes than mine and can add to my few comments about State Farm’s response in opposition to Provost Umphrey’s Motion for Leave to discuss representation of their qui tam case with the Rigsby siters. h/t Y’all.

Unlike the various motions to disqualify, this one has a reasoned argument and I expect the Reply from Provost Umphrey to do likewise. Consequently, I’m going to hold my opinion until I have the opportunity to compare arguments on the key points.

Provost Umphrey’s Motion for Leave should be denied for two central reasons:

Subversion of the McIntosh Order. Allowing Provost Umphrey to consult with – and potentially represent – the Rigsbys in the False Claims Action would enable Counsel to subvert the careful wall constructed by this Court’s disqualification order in McIntosh.

Creation of Nonwaivable and Irreconcilable Conflicts of Interest. Because the positions taken by the Rigsbys in the False Claims Action are necessarily and irreconcilably inconsistent with the interests of Provost Umphrey’s policyholder litigation clients, Provost Umphrey has a nonwaivable conflict of interest that should preclude it from representing the Rigsbys and State Farm policyholder litigation clients simultaneously.

Beyond the reasoned argument, I found the usual word games in the three transcripts of depositions provided as Exhibits – one from Kerri Rigsby that I’ve read before and the other two from two of their co-workers who were also friends – Tammy Hardison and Dana Lee.

I’ve got a pile of work here on my desk and a half-finished post to complete; so, I’m going to take a pass on reading these for now and just get the post up.

4 thoughts on “O-U-T spells out goes you – State Farm responds to Provost Umphrey's interest in Rigsby Qui Tam”

  1. It sounds like State Farm is admitting everything and saying because everyone knows it, it shoudn’t be admissable.

  3. I must have missed it – I don’t see State Farm admitting anything. They just say letting PU represent the Rigsbys would not be consistent with prior court orders and the purpose of those orders & would put PU in conflict with their other clients. The last issue about Rigsby’s motives, knowledge of whether their conduct was wrong etc., doesn’t seem to me to be the most important issue but is being used as support for the first argument about why the court ruled their testimony inadmissible.

  4. It’s always interesting to read State Farm’s versions of events. They state things as facts when the facts don’t fit exactly right.

    There wasn’t a wall put up. KLG et al. were disqualified and the Rigsbys are disqualified as witnesses in the Katrina/KLG litigations. So, even if P&U are allowed to represent the Rigsbys in the qui tam they still cannot use their testimony in the State Farm/KLG cases anyway, right? There is already a record in these cases which as we know, we can all read. But in the courts of law you can only use admissable evidence, anyway. In these case where Senter is the judge, HE knows it all, too! State Farm is trying to get away with fraud. Let’s remember that! We all know that they were working under the rule of there was NO WIND DAMAGE ON THE COAST! Well, there was! Also, remember State Farm made money in 2005 while the NFIP went broke.

    The Rigsbys saw it. They are the messengers and State Farm wants to shoot the messengers of course. The Rigsbys’ state of mind in believing they had uncovered fraud and believed that it was a HUGE DEAL because State Farm was ripping off people on the coast and the taxpayers of the US. That is not their FAULT! State Farm did the dirty and want to blame the sisters for exposing them.

    You know it said they were watching the Insider? Well, remember how it went down for the whistleblower in that case?

Comments are closed.