More rapid than eagles these coursers they came
Scrooges and Stooges that went straight to work
Filling stockings with motions and giving justice a jerk!
Katrina insurance litigation is beginning to not look at lot like Christmas – even when State Farm slips in a check. Take Kuehn v State Farm, for example. Anita Lee reported State Farm pays up, but argues award was in error in Monday’s Sun Herald:
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. recently paid a couple $179,100.31 for Katrina damage, but their attorney said the check came too late to save Henry and June Kuehn’s Cove Place home.
Attorney Earl Denham said the two-story house further deteriorated as the Kuehns awaited settlement of their insurance claim. The city of Ocean Springs wants the property cleaned up.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ordered the Katrina payment in August, but State Farm has asked him to reconsider the ruling.
“This amount is tendered without recourse, but with the understanding that this is not an admission of an amount owed,” said a letter sent with the check by State Farm attorney Scot Spragins of Oxford. “Given the circumstances, State Farm has decided to make this tender to eliminate the threatened destruction of the Kuehns’ home.
“State Farm intends to continue to litigate the issue. In the event that we are successful and it is determined that these sums are not owed, then State Farm will not seek reimbursement.”
Denham replied the next day: Continue reading “Scrooges and Stooges – State Farm attorneys pack the sleigh!”
As reported in Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam, Coast attorney Deborah Trotter of the Merlin Law Group is counsel for plaintiff’s in three similar cases currently before the Court, Judge Senter presiding. Magistrate Judge Parker was assigned Lizana v State Farm and Magistrate Judge Walker the other two, Lebon v State Farm, and New Light Baptist Church v State Farm:
Defendant simultaneously filed three motions for protective order in response to Plaintiff’s Notices of 30(b)(6) Depositions, one of which was an expedited motion to quash and for protective order, for which the Lebon Court ordered Plaintiff on November 9, 2009, to Respond by 9:00am on November 10, 2009, during Hurricane Ida Warnings. As all three motions filed simultaneously by Defendant were similar in substance, context and argument, with the exception of the additional motion to quash in the Lebon case, Plaintiff’s counsel determined that in the interest of judicial economy and consistency that all should be responded to simultaneously and in combination. (Plaintiff’s Amended Response, Lizana)
Plaintiffs’ notices were filed simultaneously but State Farm’s motions were cleverly staggered:
- October 30: Lizana, Lebon and New Light Baptist Church plaintiffs each file Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum
- November 6: Lebon v State Farm: Motion to Expedite, Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum think and Motion for Protective Order by State Farm
- November 9: New Light Baptist Church v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm
- November 11: Lizana v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm
Cleverly staggered – and cleverly planned to produce the following result: Continue reading “Magistrate Judge Walker – the Company man shows his hand in rush to trump Magistrate Judge Parker”
so I may know the outer limits of the potential claims involved in this
action, I will require State Farm to submit, in camera, a list containing the name of the insured, the address of the property, and the amount of flood insurance paid, for all SFIP claims that meet the following criteria…
Let’s just cut to the chase here and consider whether the list of State Farm policyholder claims the Company was Ordered to provide Judge Senter was worth the paper it was written on.
Lizana’s response to State Farm (Lizana v State Farm) gives cause for concern about the integrity of the claims file produced in discovery for any given case and even more about the integrity of the list of claims meeting Judge Senter’s criteria.
On or about February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs served discovery requests to Defendant, which contained numerous requests for information regarding Defendant’s first party property claims handling procedures, the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant’s data storage systems, retention policies and procedures, and communication transmittals, among other requests seeking relevant information and data.
Fast forward to November 2009. Continue reading “Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam”