Category: Rigsby Qui Tam

Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform

The “drafts file” is overflowing (again) and time is short (again) – nothing to do but pull a handful of things I think worth a mention and go for what Sop has called a “round-up” post.

First up is an update on Young v Scruggs – brief because the case is stuck on proper service of the summons issued to Dick Scruggs, a discussion I passed on recenty when reporting Defendant’s Rebuttal.  What’s happened since the, however, is more interesting.  First, the defendants fied a Motion to Strike Purported Summons that basically restated the argument Scruggs was not lawfully served and there was a pending motion to dismiss on that basis.  Next, plaintiffs pop up and file Notice the summons has been reissued – and on that same day, according to the docket,  defendants filed anAmended Motion to Strike that cites and attaches a recent Mississippi Supreme Court ruling on the subject that’s worth a look.

The latest news on USA v Minor (Whitfield and Teel) makes for interesting reading – so did the recently filed Motion for Rehearing that was sitting in drafts when most media had the story up.  Here’s the Motion and here’s the latest:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Paul Minor notifies the Court of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (Jan. 21, 2010). That decision clarifies that the jury instructions in this case, which allowed the jury to convict the defendants of honest services fraud for campaign contributions made with only an intent to influence and without any quid pro quo, violate the First Amendment. h/t Legal Schnauzer (entire letter posted there)

Now, news on the “odds” – the first “odd” appears to be Gerald Nielsen or, more accurately, Mr. Nielsen appears to be odd – long on ego but short on memory.  Continue reading “Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform”

Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam

so I may know the outer limits of the potential claims involved in this
action, I will require State Farm to submit, in camera, a list containing the name of the insured, the address of the property, and the amount of flood insurance paid, for all SFIP claims that meet the following criteria…

Let’s just cut to the chase here and consider whether the  list of State Farm policyholder claims the Company was Ordered to provide Judge Senter was worth the paper it was written on.

Lizana’s response to State Farm (Lizana v State Farm) gives cause for concern about the integrity of the claims file produced in discovery for any given case  and even more about the integrity of the list of claims meeting Judge Senter’s criteria.

On or about February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs served discovery requests to Defendant, which contained numerous requests for information regarding Defendant’s first party property claims handling procedures, the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant’s data storage systems, retention policies and procedures, and communication transmittals, among other requests seeking relevant information and data.

Fast forward to November 2009. Continue reading “Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam”

(almost) Breaking News – Trial date set for Rigsby Qui Tam

My computer broke before I could post the breaking news (hence the “almost”).  $%#&  Now, I’m broke; $%#&  However, Sop (and everyone else who saw the Katrina survivor I typed on until today) will tell you that I’ve needed a new computer at least as long as he’s known me.

I’ve got one now…it looks a lot like the trip to the beach I was planning because I didn’t  just buy one, I bought two and an external hard drive that backs up what I put on them (and will  hold more than I’ll have to save before placing  my order with Walmart) – but enough of that and on to the (almost) breaking news.

Rigsby qui tam is going to trial. December 1 is the date…2010 is the year – according to the scheduling order locked in my old computer.

It’s been a long day.  I started shopping after lunch but didn’t have everything working until an hour or so before midnight.  So, tomorrow Scarlett (or maybe the next day) I’ll come up with the scheduling order and update this post.  Meanwhile, let us all ponder WTF is the reason there will be no trial on the Rigsby qui tam claim until the sixth year following Hurricane Katrina.

Let’s talk – the Maurstad directive on post-Katrina Expedited Claim Handling UPDATED

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. Continue reading “Let’s talk – the Maurstad directive on post-Katrina Expedited Claim Handling UPDATED”

BREAKING NEWS! Judge Senter moves State Farm counterclaim to separate trial; will try Rigsby qui tam first

I am of the opinion that an attempt to try the Relators’ claim and State Farm’s counterclaim in a single proceeding is likely to hopelessly confuse the jury on the merits of both claims. Accordingly, I will bifurcate the trial of these two claims, and I will hear the evidence on the Relators’ qui tam claim first. I will stay discovery on State Farm’s counterclaim until the trial of the Relators’ claim has been completed, and I will schedule a separate trial to reach the merits of the counterclaim.

It’s been over a year since Judge Senter made his priority perfectly clear.

…I have watched the property damage insurance claims, the contract claims at the heart [of] these cases, being pushed off their rightful place at center stage by the escalating heat of the battles…it is my sincere hope that the type of normal, professional, and focused advocacy necessary to resolve the individual merits of the cases still outstanding will presently come to the fore.

SLABBED applauded him then and we applaud him again today.  Since this post started with his bottom line, let’s back up and look at his logic path.

The parties have submitted letters to the Court stating their respective positions on the discovery that must be conducted to prepare for trial on the merits of this action. The main disagreement between the parties is whether this discovery and the trial itself should include State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (State Farm) counterclaim for the Relators’ alleged misappropriation and misuse of certain claims documents. Continue reading “BREAKING NEWS! Judge Senter moves State Farm counterclaim to separate trial; will try Rigsby qui tam first”