Defendant’s Response heavy on argument but light on facts – O’Keefe v State Farm

O’Keefe v State Farm was briefly introduced at the end of February in Katrina insurance litigation – selected Nationwide and State Farm cases.

O’Keefe, as you may recall from the earlier post, was initially filed in State court.  As reported in that post, the O’Keefe’s legal fees increased dramatically once the case was moved to federal court.  Given the cause for complaint at that point were the 17 motions in limine that had been filed since the move, I can only imagine how frustrated they are at this point after all the twists and turns the case has taken since that post was written.

State Farm must be frustrated, too, because they’ve lost their grip on this one.  See if you don’t agree as we examine recent filings in the case on the dispute over Scope of Coverage; i.e. State Farm’s insistence the Plaintiffs’ business expenses for Dancel were not covered in the O’Keefe’s homeowner’s coverage.

The title quote – long on argument but light on facts – comes from Plaintiff’s Rebuttal in Opposition to Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment RE Scope of Coverage.

…contrary to State Farm’s argument, the pertinent facts in this issue include: Continue reading “Defendant’s Response heavy on argument but light on facts – O’Keefe v State Farm”