Tag: Standard Fire

In short Order – Judge Vance issues Order and Reasons with a few suggestions for Branch qui tam defendants

While Liberty Mutual’s and Standard Fire’s motions to sever have been pending, the Branch docket has had a severe case motion sickness.  Judge Vance offered the cure in short order in what is a really short Order denying both motions as “premature”.

A typical Sarah Vance Order is detailed and lengthy – and this one is neither.  When I read it the first time, I thought it would just take a few minutes to compose this post; but, then, I read it again and that was hours ago and this is my fourth sentence.  Obviously, I’ve done more thinking than writing.  Is it short and lacking in detail because it would be “premature” to say more or is she deliberately guarded?

She gives only one reason for denying the two motions to sever:

There appear to be at least one or more common issues of law or fact in this action that warrant consolidation under Rule 42 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, at least in the pretrial phase of this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) (“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.”).

The reason is followed by what I’d call “passing mention” of several “common issues of law or fact”: Continue reading “In short Order – Judge Vance issues Order and Reasons with a few suggestions for Branch qui tam defendants”

“It’s the same old song But with a different meaning” – electronically stored information: Branch qui tam

Nowadays, all roads seem to lead to Jefferson Parish.  Why I was surprised to find a road connecting Jefferson Parish to the Branch qui tam case is beyond me.  Mind you, it’s not a main road; but, before we can go there, a little background is in order and, for that, we make a u-turn and a quick stop at Shall we dance – the SLABBED post on Magistrate Shushan’s Order granting in part the Branch motion to file a second amended complaint.

Data extracted from 2006 Market Conduct Exam of Defendant Standard Fire calculated to show percentage claims and payments from Orleans and Jefferson Parish were of Total number and amount paid by the Company following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In her Order, Magistrate Shushan declared, “The loss-shifting and inflated-revenue motives create two entirely different schemes”.  I contend otherwise…Not only is “inflated revenue” an essential element of loss-shifting, the Magistrate had no data to support her decision…

Back on the road but a detour ahead that takes us by the Louisiana Department of Insurance where we pick up the data-heavy Market Conduct Exam of Branch Defendant Standard Fire’s claims handling following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and straight to Jefferson Parish.

Data are an essential element of the decision-making process; however, data derive meaning in the context of other data.  For example, if claims data from all insurers covering property in Jefferson Parish were analyzed in the context of other data, it could be possible to determine the extent of damage resulting from the disabled pumping system and, in turn, indicate the associated cost of contracts for the required repair and rebuilding and concomitant loss from corruption of the contracting process – The rising tide that’s sinking all ships…

However, in this post, these data are an indicator of the critical need for a broad discovery process to informed decision-making about Continue reading ““It’s the same old song But with a different meaning” – electronically stored information: Branch qui tam”

chain, chain, chain of fools – Liberty Mutual’s and Standard Fire’s motions to break chain and sever from Branch defendants

Aretha I’m not but a chain of fools I can spot –  and, despite their claims to the contrary, there’s no weak link between either Liberty Mutual or Standard Fire and the other Branch defendants.  I will concede, however, both companies rattle the chain more than most.  In fact, they make so much noise that I would have missed the motions to sever each filed in January had the two defendants not recently filed motions for leave to Reply to the Branch Response in Opposition to their motions..

Apparently, I’m not the only one who ignored the rattling and moved on.  While both argue against being joined with other defendants, the two companies are obviously joined in a defense strategy to sever.  Each requested a hearing on its motion on the same day, the 3nd of February, a date that passed without a response from the Court.  Perhaps, I’m not the only one these two links in the “chain” didn’t fool.

The WYO Accounting Procedures Manual, Exhibit 1 to the Branch Opposition brief, documents the link. Liberty Mutual makes a foolish attempt to fool the Count by claiming Branch “espouses a new theory of liability” by arguing “the defendants’ unauthorized/fraudulent use of the DHHS PMS” as sufficient to “satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2)’s requirement that the right to relief against joined defendants must arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences”.

Surely, neither defendant expects the Court to believe its company does not have to use the established NFIP procedures and system to file flood claims!  The word games these two companies are playing is based on the same flawed analysis of policyholder claims data used to justify streamlined or steamrolled procedures.

Granted, each claim represents a different property and all that claim handling entails. However, the Feldman procedures erred because the number one insurer’s claims are to the total number of claims is a reliable indicator of nothing other than the calculated percentage.  Likewise, the number of exemplary claims Branch cited for a single defendant insurer is not a statistically reliable indicator of the extent of the alleged fraud.  The Branch opposition brief picks up from there: Continue reading “chain, chain, chain of fools – Liberty Mutual’s and Standard Fire’s motions to break chain and sever from Branch defendants”

If you can’t trust anti-trust, what can you trust?

I’d rather be posting my recipe for Cranberry Daiquiris than tackling anti-trust issues – and probably should do both as there is little entertainment value in the subject.

If you read my earlier post and want more background, I suggest this tag-on of Sop’s from late summer when he stepped in to help me find my way back from an unexpected detour by Road Home.

Although today’s ruling was in federal court; the Katrina insurance antitrust case was filed in State court – and for good reason.  Louisiana has a State anti-trust law, one of the defendants insurers is domiciled in Louisiana, and the alleged price fixing took place in the State.  However, the defendants were successful in their effort to move the case to federal court; and, it appears from the Ex Parte consent motions on the docket, that Buck up Buddy had also been successful in resolving his concerns about Foti’s contracts with private attorneys.

The State’s interest was represented by one of the staff attorneys from the AG’s office, Jane Johnson, who filed a reply memorandum in support of motion to sever as suggested in a related Fifth Circuit ruling on the case now known as Louisiana ex rel Caldwell v Allstate.

The Attorney General proposes what the 5th Circuit ordered, that this Honorable Court decide on the best course of action and is suggesting severing the claim for injunctive relief because 1) that allows more options for this Court in deciding how to proceed, and 2) that is what the Fifth Circuit suggested…

Allstate is only one of the Defendants.  Others insurers named as defendants include State Farm, USAA, Lafayette, Farmers, and Standard Fire.  In addition to the six insurers, there are four other defendants – McKinsey & Company; XACTWARE;  Marshall & Swift /Beockh, owner of Integriclaim; and Insurance Services Office, Inc – familiar names to SLABBED readers who have followed the scheme. Continue reading “If you can’t trust anti-trust, what can you trust?”