Tag: emotional distress

Nationwide keeps MacGuffin in the plot with Opposition to Politz motions

Since needless repetition can suggest mental health issues, could it be that Nationwide’s handling of the Politz claim has caused the Company emotional distress, too?

Maybe so.   Defendant Nationwide’s 18-page Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Order, of course, has more pages than the 12-page, trimmed-down revised version filed as Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Designate Mental Health Expert.

With enough similarities in text and exhibits to make a case for stress-related repetition, it takes a while to realize that Nationwide is making the mental health of Mrs. Politz a MacGuffin in the litigation of Politz v Nationwide:

A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is “a plot element that catches the viewers’ attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction…Commonly, though not always, the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and later declines in importance as the struggles and motivations of characters play out. Sometimes the MacGuffin is all but forgotten by the end of the film.

In making her mental health a MacGuffin, Nationwide employs the classic abuse strategy of blame the victim:

Plaintiff (not Nationwide) had all the relevant information about her treatment and use of antidepressant medications in order to properly retain and disclose a mental-health expert. Moreover, she had all of this information at the time she filed this action and, thus, well in advance of the Court’s original expert deadline.

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Designate Mental Health Expert

And, then, with this distracting statement in place, Nationwide builds its case with a Continue reading “Nationwide keeps MacGuffin in the plot with Opposition to Politz motions”

Amici, “they said you was high-classed, well that was just a lie…and you ain’t no friend of mine…”

From our growing number of Louisiana readers comes news of an appeal of the 5th’s decision in Dickerson v Lexington (AIG) filed by amici curiae of Lexington (AIG) and the company’s application for a rehearing by the 5th en banc.

You aint nothin but a hound dog

Cryin all the time…

0000uuuuuu, cried the hound dogs, oooouuuuuuu, ..this case needs a rehearing if no one on the court is going to make sure our go-to folks sit on these panels….oooouuuuuuu, we’re going to have to pay under the same terms we sold these policies under if this this decision stands … oooouuuuuu, talk about emotional distress, we’re all going crazy over this decision… oooouuuuuuu, it’s not our fault people weren’t tough enough to do business without taking it personally …oooouuuuuu.

You aint never caught a rabbit and

You aint no friend of mine

What a lucky court!  Not only does it have lots of friends (re: Interested parties, pages 18-28 of the brief), they’re all in the insurance industry and will personally and professional benefit if the Court en banc reverses the panel’s decision in Dickenson v Lexington – none more than the court’s and Lexington’s best friend, the Amicus taking the lead in this case…

Allstate Insurance Company…Liberty Mutual…American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida andAmerican Security Insurance Company…Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual insurance Company, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company…Arnica Mutual Insurance Co….The Hanover Insurance Company, The Hanover American Insurance Company, and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company…Horace Mann Ins. Company, Horace Mann Property & Casualty Insurance Company, and Teachers Insurance Company…The Standard Fire Insurance Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company…Casualty Insurance Company, American National Property andCasualty Company, American National General Insurance Company, and ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company… Republic Fire and Counsel for Lafayette Insurance Company and United Fire and Casualty Company…Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company…(list in formation, emphasis added)

The two issues driving the request for an en banc rehearing are burden of proof and emotional distress.

As demonstrated in defendant-appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Bane, the Panel’s opinion could be read as incorrectly suggesting that the burden of proof remains with the insurer to show which damages are not covered once it becomes clear that a policy exclusion applies, and likewise incorrectly holds that emotional distress penalty damages may be awarded even where the insurance contract protects only pecuniary interests and where there is no proof that the insurer intended to cause emotional injury. Continue reading “Amici, “they said you was high-classed, well that was just a lie…and you ain’t no friend of mine…””