Memes, of course, are contagious and those about Katrina litigation tend to spread like wildfire. In that regard, Judge Vance, who appears to be up-to-date on her shots and fully immunized, might want to suggest others get booster shots before decisions are made on Branch’s Motion to Compel. Defendants’ response to the Branch motion is an aggregate of aggregation of epidemic proportion.
The schemata employed by the defendants are designed to weaken Branch to the point the case is dismissed as quickly as possible by limiting Branch discovery. The associated attack of the aggregated aggravators, a variation of hide and go-seek, targets Interrogatory No. 4 from the Branch Motion to Compel. Interrogatory No.4 requests aggregate data on each insurer’s Katrina reserves, “the amount of money…[an]… insurance company sets aside on its books to ensure the ability to pay…[claims]”:
As noted in Nicholas v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.:
Setting reserves is a method of managing litigation in which attorneys, claims adjusters and/or line personnel compile their mental impressions and opinions concerning the substance of the litigation as well as the cost of litigation. Specifically, when setting a reserve, attorneys and claims personnel not only assess the value of the claim based on the available evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of the claim, but also take into consideration the probability of an adverse judgment, the jurisdiction, and the fees and expenses that may be incurred in defense of the claim.
Consistent with the schemata, the meme of the aggregated aggravators is one that frames any Branch discovery not specific to a claim as a “fishing expedition”. While that meme falls short, I did go fishing hoping to catch something that would be relevant to the Branch request for each company’s aggregated reserves for Katrina claims – and while fishing I caught Central Georgia Anesthesia Servs.,P.C. v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S.,: Continue reading “Aggregate Reserves – the meme for the scheme and the schemata of the Defendants in Branch qui tam”