Tag: Mississippi State Supreme Court

“got it” – the MSSC decision in Lisanby v USAA

Not easy but I finally “got it” – Mississippi Supreme Court decision in USAA v Lisanby – and as I read over the decision, I began to “get it”.

Considering that I’m having one of those “running late and short on time” mornings, I’ll just toss out the decision and a “clue” about  USAA’s “bad faith”: The named defendants in the original Rigsby qui tam Complaint were State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide and (drumroll)…USAA.

Like Ashton, I’d like to see more documents from the docket but they’re not easy to find, particularly when “running late and short on time”.   I’ll continue to look when my day settles down – but, in the meantime, anyone who has information to share can send email with documents attached to Sop. ([email protected])

The jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $900,000 in compensatory damages, but the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of punitive damages. Continue reading ““got it” – the MSSC decision in Lisanby v USAA”

NEWS! Neilson case in jury’s hands & MSSC threw out “bad faith” awards in USA v Linsanby

Patsy Brumfield reports the closing arguments in NEMS360 story – Agent’s fate in jury’s hands

The Sun Herald is running the AP story on Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in USA v Lisanby – Supreme court rejects some of Katrina case award

Back with more as information becomes available.

Well, someone had to, so here it is – Mississippi’s State Budget 101

On this wet, cold and getting colder January day, the Mississippi State Supreme Court turned on the heat — and the otherwise dignified Chief Justice William Waller, Jr. gave the State’s hitch-up-your-britches Governor a wedgie when he officially broke the news:

The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, said Friday that Gov. Haley Barbour does not have the constitutional authority to cut the budget of the state’s court system.

Governors have been legislatively enabled to cut the budget to ensure Constitutional compliance; however, the State law says the governor can’t cut any program’s budget by more than five percent until he has cut every program’s budget by that amount.

The Supreme Court’s En Banc Administrative Order says that compliance with the Constitution also includes exempting the courts from the Governor’s cuts citing provisions for separation of power.

The State Fiscal Officer’s authority to make budget cuts pursuant to Section 27-104-13, or otherwise, is limited to “agencies” and “the Mississippi Department of Transportation,” and does not extend to the judiciary, which is constitutionally-established as a separate branch of government, rather than an “agency.”

The Order points to the distinction between a “separate branch of government” and an “agency”; however, in terms of the State budget, the distinction is between “units of government” and “arms of government”, more commonly known here as “general fund agencies” and “special fund agencies”.

Special fund agencies represent two distinctly different arms.  One is the arm of the federal government and the other is actually called just that – other special funds and boy are they ever Continue reading “Well, someone had to, so here it is – Mississippi’s State Budget 101”

Insurance Law Hawaii reviews Corban decision – Impressed with the clarity of the analysis

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”