…evidence concerning dissimilar and out-of-state matters are improper as a matter of federal constitutional law.
What if there were out-of -state matters about State Farm’s Katrina claims handling that are not dissimilar as the motion in limine claims? While the dozen such motions the company filed in Payment v State Farm prior to making the Offer of Judgment initially brought McIntosh v State Farm to mind, Dr. Payment’s case is much more akin to Kodrin v State Farm, the first Katrina case against Start Farm heard by a jury in Federal Court in Louisiana.
Rebecca Mowbray had the story in the November 18, 2007 edition of the Times Picayune’s online.
…the jury’s message was clear: If companies want to deny payments under homeowners insurance policies because the damage was instead caused by flood, they darn well better be able to prove that flood was indeed what destroyed the home.
The jury’s message was even clearer after one juror contacted David Rossmiller.
“Since we were not allowed to read or listen to news, I was curious what had been reported the last couple of days and when I came upon this blog and this statement: the Kodrins have agreed, by accepting the flood money that at least that amount of damage to the home was due to uncovered flood. This infuriated me since this was exactly why they did not want to file a flood insurance claim (which is paid by the government, not the insurance companies). It proved after the fact that State Farm was trying to get away with Continue reading “The past isn’t dead (Kodrin v State Farm), it’s not even past (Payment v State Farm)”