Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam

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”

Allan Kanner can just evermore kiss my *** ex rel

The 5th Circuit has released its long awaited Opinion on the Appeal of the Katrina Qui Tam claim filed by a group of public adjusters as the Branch Consultants – an Opinion that references this year’s award-winning snark –

and the Big Sleazy in the Big Easy Award goes to…

Here, Sop, hold the envelope a minute while I direct readers to the excellent background you posted last March and April; and, take a quick look at the 5th’s Opinion – including a significant error.

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Branch’s claims against State Farm and Allstate. We REVERSE the dismissal of Branch’s claims against all other Defendants based upon the ground of the first-to-file bar. Rather than address Defendants’ alternative grounds for affirmance, we REMAND the cause so the district court can consider those arguments in the first instance…

The Court’s error is dismissing Allstate in light of the stated intent to dismiss the only Branch Defendants that Rigsby names.

Although Allstate was one of the four insurers named when the Rigsby sisters filed suit in April 2006, they later (March 05, 2008) filed a Consent Motion to dismiss three insurers – Allstate, Nationwide, and USAA.   Judge Senter issued the Order on the 10th and received the needed approval of the Department of Justice a week later.  Consequently, State Farm has been the sole insurer named as a defendant in the Rigsby qui tam for almost a year.

The obvious question is how did the Court make such an error and I have no answer.  However, there are other misrepresentations of fact in the Opinion; and, on several of those I have more than a guess.

The envelope, please, Sop, and Continue reading “Allan Kanner can just evermore kiss my *** ex rel”

State Farm files emergency motion to compel Rigsby deposition

Scratching my head on this one and wondering if I’m confused or if State Farm’s approach to qui tam discovery has become the tin of sardines looking for a key it appears to be. I guess I’m confusing you now; sorry. Here’s the deal.

State Farm filed an emergency motion today asking Judge Walker to compel the deposition of the Rigsby sisters. Attached to the motion as exhibits are email messages to-and-from State Farm’s counsel in the case documenting the good neighbor’s effort to schedule a date.

On May 23, 2008, this Court entered its Order [Doc. 1196] granting State Farm’s motion to compel Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby (hereinafter “the Rigsbys”) to each submit to one additional hour of depositions with the caveat that State Farm may best be served by waiting until issues regarding Cori Rigsbys computer were resolved.

On Monday, August 4, 2008, State Farm finally received a copy of a disk containing information
retrieved from Cori Rigsby’s computer. Yet, on July 23, 2008, in anticipation of receipt of that disk, counsel for State Farm had already begun to inquire about possible deposition dates for the Rigsbys. See Exhibit A.

On July 23, 2008, following the initial inquiry regarding deposition dates, counsel for the Rigsbys responded by requesting potential dates from State Farm=s counsel. See Exhibit B attached hereto.

There’s nothing unusual about the motion; but, the Exhibits are a different matter. Look at the header I copied with email addresses deleted; and, see if anything strikes you as unusual, too. Continue reading “State Farm files emergency motion to compel Rigsby deposition”

State Farm takes another swing at Qui Tam attorneys – Judge Senter calls “strike 1”

We’ve got ourselves a ballgame here, folks.

Here’s how Judge Senter’s called it in the Order he issued yesterday.

Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company filed a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages with respect to memoranda connected to its Motion to Disqualify Relators’ Counsel.

Before obtaining the Court’s permission, said Defendant filed its reply. Continue reading “State Farm takes another swing at Qui Tam attorneys – Judge Senter calls “strike 1””

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention”

Tom Peters got the general idea; but, Harry Truman’s If you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em seems to be more appropriate as we start the week with a little beef, a lot of Scruggs, and a thought or two about the meaning of flood.

  • One beef was settled when the Facilities Group paid sub-contractors for work on the failed beef plant. The Clarion-Ledger ran the story in Sunday’s paper; but, there’s more to the cow than that – Jim Hood’s lawsuit and USA v Moultrie.
  • Big day tomorrow for Jones v Scruggs, the fee dispute related to the agreement between Jones and the other member firms of SKG. Speaking of confusion, it’s up to Judge Coleman to clear things up – and that’s going to be a challenge because Judge Lackey really muded it up when he demanded money so he could decide if he’d been bribed – duh. Maybe we’ll learn what really happened – although that would be a first as I can’t recall a bigger one-sided story than USA v Scruggs.