A post on Insurance Law Hawaii (h/t CLS) sent me racing to the Branch qui tam docket thinking I’d missed an Order more recent than those I linked in taproot – digging out the fact on Branch qui tam.
As it turned out, I had not. Sop posted Judge Vance’s 69-page Order of October 19 in Judge Sarah Vance Educates Insurers about Federal Court Jurisdiction in False Claims Act Cases that I linked in taproot.
However, while SLABBED focused on the big picture of Judge Vance’s ruling; i.e., Branch was moving forward, Tred Eyerly, the attorney who writes Insurance Law Hawaii, pointed to the ruling of Branch Consultants qualified as an “original source” – a ruling the Defendant are challenging in their Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal.
State Farm tried to run the “original source” rabbit in the Rigsby qui tam; but, the dog didn’t hunt. Let’s take a look at why and see if we pick up the scent of the “good neighbor”. Continue reading “Judge Vance’s decision consistent with ABA analysis of Supreme Court’s Rockwell decision – a Branch qui tam update”
The Mississippi Supreme Court shined in its analysis of the term “concurrently.”
At the top of the SLABBED blogroll and now dear to our heart as well, Insurance Law Hawaii writes Corban Presents Well-Reasoned Analysis of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause:
Having now read the full Corban decision, I am impressed with the clarity of the analysis set forth in the opinion. See Corban v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 2009 Miss LEXIS 481 (Miss. Sup. Ct. Oct. 8, 2009). The Mississippi Supreme Court carefully considered the facts, offered a common sense analysis to the anti-concurrent causation clause, and determined the provision had no application to the facts at hand. The case has implications for Hawai`i because homeowners’ policies issued here typically include an anti-concurrent causation clause. Continue reading “Insurance Law Hawaii reviews Corban decision – Impressed with the clarity of the analysis”
The good people over at Insurance Law Hawaii picked up coverage of Dickerson where we once again find Mississippi’s lack of a timely payment statute leaves us out in the cold. Bottom line, if you are lucky enough to live in Hilo or Maui you’re half way protected. On the other hand if you live on Hilo Way or Maui Street you’re pretty much SOL:
The Fifth Circuit also affirmed an award of statutory penalties for arbitrarily failing to pay a claim within thirty days. After receiving the first adjuster’s report concluding that the wind caused the damage, Lexington took no action for over sixty days.
Hawaii’s Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act lists as an unfair practice the failure to offer payment within thirty days of affirmation of liability if the amount of the claim has been determined and it is not in dispute, Haw. Rev. Stat. 431:13-103 (a)(11)(F), but there is no statutory penalty for such delay.
Congrats to Tred for making the elite list of insurance blogs at Alltop. Keep making like Joe Friday guys and the big time litigators down here such as Rick and Soren will keep you stocked with material.
I’ve added a new left hand section called blawgroll where our readers can find good insurance legal case coverage and commentary. Joining Chip Merlin in our new blawgroll is Insurance Law Hawaii, which landed on my radar screen thanks to Brother Bruce’s sharp eye at the Ladder. Robert and Trey are Joe Friday like in their commentary just sticking with the facts. Yesterday they covered Perrien v. State Farm Ins. Co. a case where the issues seem straightforward. We have covered payment apportioning many times here on slabbed including Weiss v Allstate, where the Eastern Louisiana District Courts took the oddball position that an insured’s acceptance of a flood check essentially means an insurer gets away with a bad adjustment and claims dumping.
Here is an excerpt from Insurance Law Hawaii on Perrien:
The insureds’ home sustained significant damage from Hurricane Katrina. State Farm provided both flood insurance and homeowner’s insurance on the property. State Farm paid policy limits under the flood policy, $152,900 for dwelling damages and $52,900 for contents/personal property. Under the homeowner’s policy, State Farm paid $9,125 for dwelling damages, $400 for contents damages, and $11,564 for Loss of Use of the home. State Farm denied the remainder of plaintiffs’ claim under the homeowner’s policy because the additional damage for which recovery was sought had resulted from flood, an excluded peril under the homeowner’s policy.
The insured filed suit seeking to recover the policy limits under their homeowner’s policy as well as asserting a claim for bad faith based on State Farm’s arbitrary and capricious failure Continue reading “New Legal Developments in Louisiana State Farm Wind-Water Litigation”