USA files Statement of Interest – supports Branch qui tam relators’ Motion to Strike defendant’s third party claims

Although the United States has declined to intervene and is therefore not a party to this action, the United States remains the real party in interest, entitled to share in any recovery that may be obtained in the qui tam action…The United States therefore has a substantial interest in ensuring that the FCA is interpreted correctly…The United States herein takes no position on the overall merits of any of the claims or third-party claims raised in this case or Fidelity’s opposition brief.  The United States submits that Relator’s motion to strike the third-party claims for overpayment asserted by defendant Fidelity against its individual flood-insurance policyholders named in Relator’s complaint should be granted, in keeping with well-established law prohibiting third-party practice in FCA cases.

In a June,  SLABBED reported the first Statement of Interest filed by the USA in the Branch qui tam case  Support for Rigsby qui tam found hanging on the Branch qui tam docket. Background on the issue prompting the USA to file a second  Statement of Interest –  defendant Fidelity’s assertion of third party claims – can be found in the recent SLABBED post, taproot – digging out the fact of Branch qui tam.

While a striking departure from the conduct of the USA in the Rigsby qui tam, these statements of interest reflect nothing than the need for the President to fill the vacant US Attorney positions in Mississippi – preferably with individuals who understand  the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.

As was the case with the first, the US Attorney’s office in Baton Rouge has demonstrated  the competence and commitment necessary to fulfill a “prosecutor’s special duty” in this second Statement of Interest: Continue reading “USA files Statement of Interest – supports Branch qui tam relators’ Motion to Strike defendant’s third party claims”

OMG, Nowdy went to Plato’s Cave looking for the illusion of coverage in anti-concurrent causation (but don’t start any rumors, she has three children)

Talk about having doubt about the meaning, what do you make of this?

I was looking through my Bloglines feedreader last night under my folder labeled “anti-concurrent cause,” and saw this really good post from the Slabbed blog.   This is a fascinating discussion not only of Katrina damage, but of the theory of illusory insurance coverage.  It’s old, now, the post, from the nostalgia file, but it is still worth talking about.

I thought Sop was “illusionating” when he told me about the reference; but, the compliment is real and so is later disclaimer:

So I can’t agree with the premise presented, both by the author, nowdoucit, and quoted material from policyholder lawyer Chip Merlin, that anti-concurrent cause language is in any way ambiguous or illusory.

My first response, however, is neither ambiguous nor illusory.  It’s simply a thank you to David Rossmiller for opening a timely discussion on anti-concurrent causation and another thank you to Chip Merlin for holding up his end of the conversation and our shared position.

Disagreeing with the premise, however, is contrary to fact established in Dickinson v Nationwide. Continue reading “OMG, Nowdy went to Plato’s Cave looking for the illusion of coverage in anti-concurrent causation (but don’t start any rumors, she has three children)”