Provost Umphrey’s interest in the Rigsby sister’s qui tam case signals the possibility of good news for all parties in Katrina policyholder cases against State Farm. Anita Lee has the story for the Sun Herald, the Motion filed by Provost Umphrey and State Farm’s short-sighted response.
The Texas Law Firm now representing former Scruggs Katrina Group clients also wants to consider taking on a whistle-blower lawsuit for two former insurance adjusters who handled State Farm claims, but not without a federal judge’s permission.
The Provost Umphrey Law Firm is asking the U.S. District Court for “leave to discuss and possibly undertake representation” of Ocean Springs sisters Cori and Kerri Rigsby, inaccurately referred to in the motion as “Kelli.”
Scruggs Katrina Group attorneys and all law firms previously associated with them on Katrina lawsuits against State Farm have been disqualified from those cases.
Strategically, this is a win-win proposition for all concerned - none more than Lady Justice herself! From the perspective of looking from the outside in, what’s been missing from all of the legal action thus far is coordination.
There’s no way to turn back the hands of time and have a court segregate the documents in the “data dump” but a single law firm involved in both qui tam and policy holder cases can do that and everyone, including State Farm, stands to gain.
The Rigsbys are suing State Farm on the federal government’s behalf. They claim the company committed fraud by altering Katrina damage reports so the federal flood program rather than the insurance company had to cover damage. The government paid for damage from tidal surge, while State Farm and other private insurers were responsible for wind damage.
State Farm has denied any wrongdoing. Attorneys for the insurer said the company will likely oppose any effort by Provost Umphrey to represent the Rigsbys.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Jackson so far has declined to intervene and prosecute the case, leaving the Rigsbys to forge ahead if they choose. However, Provost Umphrey says a Louisiana firm already has turned down their case.
So, why is State Farm giving notice of objection if the stand to gain? Knee-jerk maybe instead of the logical thinking needed? Provost-Umphrey lists qui tam as one of its practice areas. Understandably, so, given the firm’s focus on labor law. Given that expertise and the opportunity that’s been on the table since the Missouri firms were disqualified, their restraint, as well as their cautious approach, speaks well of the firm.
In the world as it should be – and hasn’t been for so long that we’ve all but forgotten – State Farm should welcome the opportunity to prove its case, get out of the courthouse and back to the business of insurance. Continued opposition on their part exceeds their duty to defend and sends the wrong message to their agents, policy holders and the public.
Filed under: Bad Faith, False Claims Act, Katrina Insurance Cases, Post-Katrina Coast, Qui Tam, Rigsby Sisters | Tagged: Rigsby Qui Tam, State Farm
nowdoucit
Eeeeeeasy trigger. I don’t know, this firm may be too close to the fire. Hasn’t Senter fired a shot off thier bow allready. Don’t want the good judge to change his mind and do the DQ on us. The Rigsbys need some unknowns, out-of-towners, and soon.
What the Rigsby sisters need duesouth is a firm with expertise in qui tam, deep enough pockets to see it through, a knowledge of related Katrina litigation, the ability to cut through the crap and get things going.
What they want are people who will protect them like Scruggs did and be as kind as I believe the Missouri lawyers were. But, I have a feeling that Tony Dewitt was one of a kind and no one is going to be as protective as Scruggs unless there’s a similar family connection. IOW, what they want is not going to be an option so they are going to have to think about what they need, get ready and get this show on the road.
No way to know for sure, but it may be that State Farm is under a time deadline and they want to avoid waiving right to oppose the motion. Easier to change their mind and decide they don’t want to oppose than vice versa – decide later they want to oppose without objecting now.
Think it may be a problematic issue for Provost Humphrey to represent the Rigsbys when their documentation and testimony has been ruled inadmissable by PH’s other clients.
Whether it is a win-win probably depends on how you define “win”. From State Farm’s perspective coordination may not be a win. They might prefer to keep the Rigsbys as far removed from the other cases as possible. “Proving the case and getting out of the courthouse” isn’t always the prime objective.
Justme, thank you as always for providing food for thought – I always look forward to your visits.
Your perspective on State Farm is one that crossed my mind as I was writing and I hope they were just short on time. IMO, its as important to their agents to get this behind us as it is to get it resolved for those who need to rebuild and move on with some sort of normal in their lives.
Your second point, the possible “problematic issue” is the one that I would hope could be resolved in a better fashion than the current “baby out with the bathwater”.
The current fragmentation is really a problem that trickles down. Nothing is ever going to be the same as it was before Katrina – not the insurance industry or the Coast – and we need to get these legal issues that divide us resolved so we can work together and create the best possible future.
The world is changing rapidly as we continue to run in place.