Category: O’Keefe v State Farm

What’s the score? No, not the Saints game, I know they won – I’m talkin’ Katrina litigation and then some

So, what’s up besides the Saints? Well, for starters there’s the trial of Bossier v State Farm that got underway yesterday after the jury was seated mid-afternoon.  The grapevine reported there was time for opening statements (with no personal commentary re: Bossier’s motion in limine) and one witness before Court ended for the day.   The second day began at 10am and hopefully I’ll get another grapevine report or there will be something in the Sun Herald.

State Farm filed an an 11th hour trial brief, but  an interesting one nonetheless, that sets forth the Company’s position on the meaning of the Corban decision:

State Farm anticipates that Plaintiff at trial may attempt to satisfy his burden of proof merely by pointing to the totality of damage to his house at the conclusion of Hurricane Katrina. Continue reading “What’s the score? No, not the Saints game, I know they won – I’m talkin’ Katrina litigation and then some”

Catching up on Katrina litigation

With a lot of catching up to squeeze in a single post, I’ll jump right in and start with Bossier v State Farm as the trial starts in just a few days.  Judge Senter tied up all the loose ends with two orders issued last Friday.  First up is his Order granting in part Bossier’s only motion in limine.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine addresses three subjects: the admissibility of evidence surrounding Plaintiff’s receipt of a Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) grant and a loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA) arising from the Hurricane Katrina loss which is the subject of this cause of action; the interjection of personal comments by counsel for the Defendant during voir dire; and a letter from one of Defendant’s employees unconditionally tendering a check to Plaintiff for the payment of dwelling extension coverage under the insurance policy at issue here. Continue reading “Catching up on Katrina litigation”

Judge Starrett on State Farm Fire and State Farm Mutual – a distinction without a difference

Amazing, is it not, that Judge Walker could find no reason to lawfully deny Burger’s motion to file an amended complaint; yet, Judge Ozerden had no problem finding a reason to deny O’Keefe’s:

State Farm Fire maintains that there is a suggestion of bad faith in Plaintiffs’ attempt to add State Farm Mutual, and that allowing Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to add this Defendant would result in undue delay and would be futile…The Fifth Circuit has interpreted “futility” in the amended pleading context to mean that an amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted…

Clearly Judge Ozerden sees a distinction between State Farm Fire and State Farm Mutual. However, his collegue Judge Starrett has declared it a distinction without a difference:

General Hood made some effort to distinguish State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, a mutual insurance company, from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, a stock insurance company.  The Court believes this to be a distinction without a difference, since all of the stock in the stock company is in fact owned by the mutual company.

Judge Starrett’s opinion on the relationship between State Farm Mutual and State Farm Fire is found in his Order of recusal, entered in State Farm v  Hood (October 10, 2007).

Hood’s position is understandable with a look at the settlement agreement at issue in the injunction State Farm obtained in Starrett’s court prior to his recusal.

agreement 2

Note the Settlement Agreement is specific to Hood’s case against defendant  State Farm Fire! Continue reading “Judge Starrett on State Farm Fire and State Farm Mutual – a distinction without a difference”

And a Happy Hump day to you too Editilla

Nowdy has some killer stuff in the pipeline and if I can get a spare second I’ll be jumping in with a post on O’Keefe v State Farm. Seems as if Lecky is fixing to get an invite and the Farm wants to keep her testimony a secret. Here is a hint for our mentally challenged Magistrate Judge Robert Walker. All the insurers used McKinsey to develop their bad faith claims handling procedures. The systematic commission of the tort of Insurance Bad Faith is not a trade secret.

So while our readers wait on content here on Slabbed, I highly recommend surfing the links over on the Ladder. We’re blessed to have such good cyber friends. And Lecky, this Youtube vid is for you boubie: Continue reading “And a Happy Hump day to you too Editilla”

party games – State Farm plays spin the bottle with O’Keefe v State Farm – Magistrate Judge Anderson takes a spin that kisses Mutual and brings it in

Both O’Keefe and State Farm began this past week with significant motions in play.  On Monday, SLABBED published It’s going to happen, a post on State Farm’s opposition to O’Keefe’s motion requesting reconsideration of the Court’s decision denying the plaintiffs’ request to include State Farm Mutual as a defendant.

Meanwhile, another dispute was taking place off-docket

Simply stated, the number  of discovery requests each party would be allowed to serve – a matter the Court decided this past July – or so it thought became a party game to State Farm.  A reading of the related briefs and orders indicates it became a game of spin the bottle.

Spin the bottle. Land on the issue driving O’Keefe’s motion to alter and/or amend the findings of the Court’s judgment re: No one knows what goes on behind closed doors:

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that, in light of the facts placed before the Court in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to add State Farm Mutual as a party Defendant…

Spin the bottle. Land on the claim made in State Farm’s opposition linked in the post It’s going to happen:

There is simply no legitimate purpose to add State Farm Mutual to this lawsuit and there is certainly no ground to reconsider the Court’s September 3, 2009 order. (emphasis added)

Spin the bottle. Land somewhere previously not mentioned on SLABBED – National Association of State Farm Agents v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company: Continue reading “party games – State Farm plays spin the bottle with O’Keefe v State Farm – Magistrate Judge Anderson takes a spin that kisses Mutual and brings it in”

It’s going to happen – update on O’Keefe v State Farm

Time and again, the Courts of the Southern District have found that State Farm Mutual does not belong in the lawsuits challenging State Farm Fire’s handling of Hurricane Katrina insurance claims…

slide_2747_38345_largeThat certainly is true; however, the Court made an error.  On the other hand,  some say the day the Court corrects an error of this magnitude will  be the day pigs fly – but, according to the Huffington Post, that day has come.

Judge Ozerden, obviously, did not believe pigs could fly when he wrote, It will not be acceptable for Plaintiff to treat “State Farm” collectively in any future pleadings…(Bridgewater v State Farm) without thinking to check and learning that State Farm treat[s] ‘State Farm’ collectively. Continue reading “It’s going to happen – update on O’Keefe v State Farm”

no one knows what goes on behind closed doors but O’Keefe wants to open the door to State Farm Mutual and find out!

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Plaintiffs’ request for a hearing on their Motions to Amend and to Expedite. The Court, in its discretion, does not find that oral argument would be necessary or helpful in deciding the Motions. Pursuant to Uniform Local Rule 7.2(F)(1), the Court shall decide Plaintiffs’ Motions without a hearing or oral argument. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE FROM THE COURT REGARDING THIS REQUEST. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 9/2/2009. (EMN) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

Oh, no-one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Behind closed doors.

The next day, Judge Ozerden issued an Order granting in-part O’Keefe’s Motion to file an amended complaint.  O’Keefes counsel, Christopher Van Cleave, was sitting on ready and the day after Ozerden’s Order issued, he filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Findings and/or Judgment of the Court; for a New Trial on and/or Seeking Relief from the Court’s Order...

First, a look at the Order – and be sure to read the feeling is Mutual – and so is the fact for background on the issue and a look at the chart showing the relationship of State Farm Mutual to State Farm Fire.

…the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be granted to the extent that it seeks to amend Plaintiffs’ claims against the existing Defendants in this case.

The remaining question is whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their Complaint to add an additional Defendant, State Farm Mutual. State Farm Fire maintains…that allowing Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to add this Defendant would result in undue delay and would be futile.

Obviously, behind closed doors, Ozerden directed his attention to State Farm’s claims of futility.  The irony was lost and he included a relatively lengthy discussion of futility in his Order before toeing the parte line: Continue reading “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors but O’Keefe wants to open the door to State Farm Mutual and find out!”

Spragins and Mullins launch State Farm’s new Gomer defense strategy hoping it will fly – right over Judge Walker’s head

Gaaw-aawl-ly. Spragins and Mullins come off like two Goobers.  They must think Judge Walker is dumb as rock to try the Gomer Strategy in cases with plaintiffs represented by Deborah Trotter or Judy Guice; but, that’s exactly what shows on the dockets of  Lizana v State Farm and Montet v State Farm and pops up on Bossier v State Farm, too. GFL!

Let’s start with Spragins’ Gomer Rebuttal to Opposition re: State Farm motions for a protective order in Lizanna and Montet :

The plaintiffs have responded to State Farm Fire’s motion for a protective order with the concern that the proposed protective order is a “blanket protective order.”

Paragraph 4 of the proposed Consent Protective Order clearly states that “confidential information” may be so designated on the face of the document. State Farm Fire has produced untold numbers of pages of documents in Katrina litigation marked “confidential,” and never had such designations challenged.

The proposed Consent Protective Order is a duplicate of hundreds of such orders entered in prior and current Katrina cases, both by consent and over objection. The response of the plaintiffs presents no new argument or information suggesting that in this particular case the proposed Consent Protective Order is in any way inappropriate.

Obviously thinking Walker can’t tell a hood ornament from a carburetor, State Farm offers the following offers the following as a concession: Continue reading “Spragins and Mullins launch State Farm’s new Gomer defense strategy hoping it will fly – right over Judge Walker’s head”

Monkey Business – State Farm Mutual, State Farm Fire, and Rule 30(b)(6)

hear-no-evil-pictureIn its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.

The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.

A subpoena must advise a non-party organization of its duty to make this designation. The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization…. Rule 30(b)(6)FRCP

When the named organization is State Farm, some think the party and the non-party are one in the same.  One who shares that view is the Administrative Law Judge who reviewed the Company’s plan to withdraw from Florida and issued a related Order :

Transactions between State Farm Mutual and State Farm Florida for reinsurance and credit risk provisions totaling approximately $561.8 million, when viewed in the light of economic reality, Subsection 1.01(3), or Section 624.04, may be transactions which State Farm Mutual engages in with itself and which lack any independent economic significance. Transactions with no independent economic significance would be sham transactions which may distort the economic costs of the reinsurance and credit risk provisions purchased from State Farm Mutual. Such economic distortions may enable the group to derive a rate advantage from the legal form in which State Farm Mutual chooses to do business in Florida. (Finding of Fact 42)

The various legal forms in which State Farm Mutual exists could be called Corporate DID:

a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a condition in which a single person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities (known as alter egos or alters), each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment. The diagnosis requires that at least two personalities routinely take control of the individual’s behavior with an associated memory loss that goes beyond normal forgetfulness…

Litigation following Hurricane Katrina became policyholders vs Eve and Sybil as State Farm  State Farm Mutual, the Company whole, disassociated into State Farm Fire & Casualty.  Continue reading “Monkey Business – State Farm Mutual, State Farm Fire, and Rule 30(b)(6)”