How ya’ gonna keep ’em down on the Farm after they’ve seen evidence linking Haag and FAEC to State Farm’s fraudulent billing scheme? Part 2: Rigsby sisters’ expert witness disclosures

“SF [State Farm] used pre-conceived notions as to the cause of the damage and directed the resolution of the claim so that the ultimate outcome conformed to that pre-conceived belief.”

The written disclosure of the Rigsbys’ Risk Management expert, Louis G. Fey, continued and identified the first evidence documenting State Farm’s pre-conceived notions as to the cause of damage:

SF obtained a regional engineering study and instructed their adjusters to use that report as a reference or as investigative input at the least or to use it as “the bible” at worst. The industry’s fair claim practices hold that each claim must be addressed on its own merits and no pre-conceived assumptions should be used to influence the outcome.

This “bible”, the Haag Report, was the cornerstone of “pre-conceived belief” that a coordinated effort could reduce State Farm’s exposure by attributing damage to the excluded flood water.  SLABBED examined the Haag Report in the September 2009 post Haag in the Church of What’s Happening Now in Rigsby qui tam.  According to the “bible”, water came before the wind – a prophecy that would be revealed as Haag ascended into State Farm’s Wind-Water Protocol, FEMA’s Expedited Claim Handling Process, and guided by hell’s own angel, Lecky King, into the reports of Forensic’s engineering.

The Rigsbys’ Risk Management expert continued his report stating, “SF failed to meet its obligations to NFIP and FEMA with regard to the proper use of engineers”. Continue reading “How ya’ gonna keep ’em down on the Farm after they’ve seen evidence linking Haag and FAEC to State Farm’s fraudulent billing scheme? Part 2: Rigsby sisters’ expert witness disclosures”

State Farm’s expert[sic] all wet: Bossier v State Farm trial update

In a written statement Monday, State Farm said “… based on the testimony of both parties, it is clear that Mr. Bossier and State Farm have different views regarding whether it was wind or storm surge that destroyed Mr. Bossier’s home.

Different views, indeed. Why else would there be a trial? It was their differing views of an expert qualified to determine cause of loss, however, that were at issue when the trial resumed yesterday.

Last week ended with Bossier’s question on the table; i.e., were State Farm’s expert witnesses, Forrest Masters, Ph.D. and Robert H. Weisberg, Ph.D., qualified to give an opinion on the cause of Bossier’s loss? State Farm answered by filing a Bench Memorandum stating the Company’s position: Continue reading “State Farm’s expert[sic] all wet: Bossier v State Farm trial update”

Rigsbys respond to Forensics – an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues that were correctly decided in the first place

SLABBED provided the post-hearing briefs – Read ‘em while they’re hot – briefs filed by State Farm, Haag, Forensic, and Rigsbys post-hearing in the Rigsby qui tam – and linked the documents filed by the defendants following Judge Senter’s Order – Evideniary disclosure is Michael Oher of Rigsby qui tam.

Claiming the Forensic motion for clarification is an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues that were correctly decided in the first place, today the Rigsbys filed Relators’ Opposition to Motion of Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corporation for Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment.

Forensic’s Motion to Reconsider should be denied because it merely rehashes the arguments Forensic previously made without pointing to any newly discovered evidence or identifying any manifest error. See also… (“F.R.Civ.P. 59. . . is not a vehicle for a litigant to ask the Court to reconsider adverse decisions it is simply unwilling to accept.”)…

Forensic, like Haag, attempts to hang its hat on the date the McIntosh claim was paid – grasping at a straw man, no doubt encouraged by State Farm.

Forensic argues that, notwithstanding the evidence of its conspiracy, the Relators’ claims against it should be dismissed for the simple reason that Forensic’s involvement in the McIntosh claim began after the flood claim had already been paid. Motion to Reconsider at 3-4. This argument is wrong for several reasons. Continue reading “Rigsbys respond to Forensics – an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues that were correctly decided in the first place”