Claims And Issues

Update to the Update: New Settlement in Mississippi

     The parties that apparently pulled out of the Mississippi Federal Court settlement, as noted here on March 14, 2007, were represented by Policyholder attorney Richard Scruggs.  Now the insurance company involved in that proposed settlement, State Farm, has arranged a reportedly similar settlement instead with the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner who recently declared for re-election to his office.  The latest developments are reported by Joseph B. Treaster in "State Farm Skirts Judge in New Hurricane Plan" (New York Times Online, Tuesday, March 20, 2007).

    The title of this newspaper article has got the wrong focus, it seems.  It appears that instead of skirting the Federal Judge or any Court, that the insurance company is "skirting" Mr. Scruggs.  The content of the article indicates that too. 

                                                Please Read The Disclaimer.

Update: Settlement Withdrawal in Mississippi.

     UPDATE:  The Settlement is in the Details, or, Show Me The Facts.

     Posts on this page reported on January 24 and January 27, 2007 how the proposed settlement of Hurricane Katrina CatClaims in Mississippi Federal Court left a lot of questions unanswered.  On Wednesday, March 14, 2007 it is being reported elsewhere that at least some of the parties are pulling the plug on this proposed settlement.  A search of the online docket for the Federal Court does not show papers filed after March 9, 2007.  As and when a link is available to relevant and material -- a well-worn phrase -- papers filed in Court, it will be linked here.
                                              Please Read Disclaimer.

Update--Expert: Things We Remember

    In the recent criminal trial in Washington, D.C. concerning perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying charges, evidence was proffered last year of a "memory expert".  Newspaper reports and the Hearing conducted to examine this proffered testimony in Federal Court were posted here on October 28, 2006.  Here is how it begins: 

    Expert Proffered for Memory Forgets Previous Crossexam!

                When Does an Expert Hearing Make National News?

         When the Expert is being examined in Federal Court for reliability in a high-profile case.  And, it seems, when the Expert is proffered on what the media calls "a memory defense," and testifies that she forgets that the interrogating attorney, in this case Patrick Fitzgerald, also previously cross-examined her in a different case.

The Federal Judge ruled to exclude this proferred testimony, a ruling which was posted here on November 3, 2006.  Now, the excluded expert is given a forum by a newspaper to opine that if she had only been allowed to testify there may not have been a conviction in that Federal criminal case.

     Unfortunately, the newspaper in question requires a paid subscription in order to link to it:   here .  I forget the price of the newspaper online or in print on the newstands, but let's say it costs a dollar.  I do remember an old saying that in this case would go something like, with the opinion piece and a dollar for the newspaper, you can buy a copy of the newspaper.

                                             Please Read Disclaimer.

"Flirting With Disaster"? Or Wise Public Policy?

                                       YOU MAKE THE CALL!

    Here is a link to a newspaper editorial that provokes thought.  The issue under discussion is in its title:  "Flirting With Disaster/Florida's Bet Against Mother Nature Puts Its Environment And Economy At Risk" (Washington Post, Monday, March 5, 2007, p. A14):  link here.

                                                 Please Read Disclaimer.

UPDATE "Tort Claims, With or Without CatClaims Insurance"

                                This is an Update to the February 3, 2007
                                Post here, "Tort Claims, With or Without
                                              CatClaims Insurance".

     On February 3, 2007, it was posted here that a Federal Judge in Louisiana allowed certain claims against the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed despite the Corps' traditional claim of an "immunity" defense.  The claims involved damages allegedly resulting during Hurricane Katrina from the Corps' "Mr. Go", or the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet project.

     The City of New Orleans has just added its own claim for $77,000,000,000.00 in damages to the lawsuit.  The bases for the City's damages figure are not available, it is reported.  Here is a link to an informative example of these new reports:  Leslie Eaton, "New Orleans Files Claim Against Corps For Billions" (New York Times Nat'l Ed., p. A12, col. 6, Saturday, March 3, 2007).

                                                    Please read Disclaimer.