Tag: E.A.Renfroe

Locked and loaded with State Farm in crosshairs – Rigsbys plan to remove Renfroe before pulling trigger

What did Refroe “flip” is the $65,000 question – one that’s going to distract from the substance of the Rigsbys’ Consolidated Response to the Dispositive Motions unless we deal with it first.   The related text from the Response is below.  Read it and put it away until Renfroe v Rigsby, the Alabama case, is settled next month.  After all, that’s what State Farm will have to do as their reply is due before the settlement.

Over the past several months, Relators have agreed to dismiss voluntarily a number of claims and defendants in order to streamline this action. Most recently, Relators reached an agreement in principle to resolve all disputes with Renfroe. Upon execution of that agreement, Relators will seek consent to dismiss their claims against Renfroe and against the individual defendants Gene and Jana Renfroe. Thus, Relators oppose dismissal ONLY of the following claims:

  • State Farm Count I: Submitting false claims
    Count II: Making or using false records in support of false claims
    Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims
    Count V: Retaliatory discharge
  • Forensic Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims
  • Haag Count III: Conspiracy to submit false claims

    • rigsby-qui-tam-33Over the weekend, I’ll be writing more about the Response and qui tam.  In this post, I’m setting the stage, so to speak, by removing potential distractions.

    One of the first that needs to go is the notion that Keri Rigsby adjusted the McIntosh claim.  As a supervisor, she accompanied the adjuster to the site; however, Cory Perry adjusted the McIntosh claim.

    On September 28, 2005, Cody Perry adjusted the McIntosh claim under the Continue reading “Locked and loaded with State Farm in crosshairs – Rigsbys plan to remove Renfroe before pulling trigger”

    Acker threatened Rigsby Qui Tam with “free legal advice” almost a year ago

    …If this case [Renfroe v Rigsby] goes to trial on this schedule with no amendment and no counterclaim, which would cover that, and this[Qui Tam] case reaches a conclusion by dispositive order and is entered, it will preclude anything —

    Now, that’s just my’ free legal advice, because I can’t control what another judge does in another case. But I can give you some free legal advice on both sides, that the first one of those cases that gets to trial and resolves the question of who did what to whom as between the Rigsbys and Renfroe — Now, let me add this dimension…

    …I predict that unless you, not I, because I can’t — I’m not calling the judge down in Mississippi and begging for him to transfer something to me. But if he, whoever it is, that’s got that case down there, the qui tam case, manages it or mismanages it, whatever, by the time that case is over, this case will have already been over. And this case will control the outcome of the retaliation claim down there one way or the other.

    Yep, the mad-as-a-hatter Judge Acker really said that – and here’s more of what he said during the Status Conference on Renfroe v Rigsby he held on August 29, 2007 Continue reading “Acker threatened Rigsby Qui Tam with “free legal advice” almost a year ago”

    Rigsby sisters “stole” those documents – that’s a lie!

    State Farm should have heeded this advice and passed it along to Renfroe.

    Always tell the truth. That way you don’t have to remember what you said.

    Not that they had to really remember to do anything but go back and read Judge Senter’s Opinion denying their request to disqualify Scruggs.

    According to State Farm’s motion, “since at least February 2006, Scruggs has had regular, unauthorized ex parte contact with two State Farm ‘insiders,’ Cori and Kerri Rigsby” who allegedly made unauthorized copies of documents relating to State Farm and Renfroe’s claims adjustments following Hurricane Katrina (emphasis added).

    Unauthorized? ‘cuse me, but do you mind authorizing me to copy these documents that prove you are fraudulently billing the government for claims you should be paying? Not going to happen – not even expected to happen.

    So who has the stolen documents (sic) E. A. Renfroe and State Farm want returned if the Rigsby sisters only made copies?

    • Not the Rigsby sisters – they only made four copies.
    • Not the Department of Justice – the Rigsby sisters turned over one copy to DOJ;
    • Not the U.S. Attorney – the Rigsby sisters turned over one copy to the USA;
    • Not the Attorney General – the sisters turned over one copy to the State’s chief law enforcement officer;
    • Not attorney Dickie Scruggs – he handed his one copy over to the State’s chief law enforcement officer,too Continue reading “Rigsby sisters “stole” those documents – that’s a lie!”

    Breaking news: Renfroe files motion to dismiss Rigsby Qui Tam

    Here’s the latest set of documents E.A. Renfroe has filed.  This time they’ve going after the literally defenseless Rigsby  sisters – proof position Judge Senter’s ill-founded decision to disqualify their Qui Tam counsel was contrary to the public interest. Continue reading “Breaking news: Renfroe files motion to dismiss Rigsby Qui Tam”