I have been turning over in my mind what kind of evidentiary rule or law the La. legislature could pass that would all but bar back ended loss adjustments.

Currently, you have to trust the jury to see it for what it is…. a pre-text as Judge Kern Reese said in Orellana v. La. Citizens.

In Bossier the jury didn’t get it. Whose fault that is? I don’t know.

There seem to be many “experts” on this thread pontificating about Katrina jury trials. I don’t see them talking about their own experiences with Katrina juries. Maybe I have none either, but Monday morning quarterbacking from a disgracefully disbarred lawyer and others is just hot air, no matter how smart they are.

It’s like reading the comments attacking Judge Vance, but supporting Joan Benge. What alternate universe are these guys living in?

Something else you mention that has been a topic of converstaion since the oral arguments in Corban is the legal concept that coverage follows premium. Team Corban had a full plate and did an excellent job in oral arguments at the MSSC but if there was one point the legal observers that speak with us consistently would have liked to have seen forcefully made that wasn’t in the oral arguments is that point.

Finally, as an auditor by trade if I find a hole in an internal control system you can bet bottom dollar at least a few of the insiders in the organization see it as well with the less than honest types poised to take advantage. Mark my words it is a question of when an insurer is busted for doing just what I laid out, not if it will occur.

Does anyone seriously think Jimbo the Clown or Mike Chaney is capable of regulating this?

sop

sop

Going to court on an insurance policy reminds me of the old days in cell phone billing. The expected profits from the 16 or so labyrinthine “plans” — splicing and dicing minutes and 100 other insidiously complicated gimmicks — collapsed under the weight of unsurpassed admin costs.

The only sensible thing to do with insurance is stop the complication. One contract, all perils, no tricks or trap doors, and streamlined claims payment. Everyone benefits when the loss is redeemed. Simply put, like a human body, society functions better and more profitably, when the injury is cured – quickly, and without 50 nurses per patient.

I have had my rights taken away completely. I do not have the court of law behind me to discover if their was negligence or fraud. And if by chance we can get a judge to let us move forward Medtronic will probably tie the case up for years making is to costly for my lawyer to proceed because of the caps in the state of Minnesota.

http://www.robertsfight.com

What I see, however, is nothing like the system “as designed”. For example, by the time for Judge Senter to consider the dispositive motions, Judge Walker has disposed of most of the evidence.

The real power is vested in clerks who read the briefs and then brief the magistrate and judges. As I understand it, a clerk’s “job description” is researching case law and writing draft versions of related orders and opinions.

So, we have a paper system that makes sense but the practical application of that system is the first crack in the envelope.

I see all of this through eyes trained in the behavioral sciences and the long story short here is exemplified in the Court’s treatment of Mrs. Politz (Politz v Nationwide). In my world, we’d call it a “case study”.

The bottom line is these are problems that can not be solved. When faced with such situations, the only viable option IMO is to transcend problems and move to higher ground. That’s were Congress comes in and you are exactly right about the segregating flood coverage from the coverage needed to ensure there property is protected in the event of a disaster.

After two years of researching and writing about these issues, I have yet to understand how “water” can be removed from hurricane coverage. It is no more possible than it is to remove snow from a snowstorm.

I never considered this possibility. At what point does the reinsurance enter into the realm of gaming? Reinsurance with a gaming component attached. When the payment of “insurance” does not depend upon a risk which you have assumed or hold is it insurance? I guess when the Courts moved away from the principle that if you charge for coverage than coverage is provided despite what the contract might exclude, these issues were the unintended consequences?

COME ON NOW…Bossier’s either a total loss or it’s not..which is it? That’s 1/2 the “fun” in predicting these matters is getting it right or at least seeing how close you’ll get to the actual figure when it’s rendered. When you’re “in the middle,” that’s too easy.

I’m gonna venture to say that the Bossier’s are going to be fairly compensated in punitives since the jury “only” gave them a verdict of $52,300.00 earlier this week (minus the $170,480 paid to date – albeit late – but paid) and, let’s not forget, now that they got the jury verdict of $52,300.00, they’re entitled to get their taxable costs paid! Sure, that might not be a lot of $ to State Farm and they’ve got such expenditures factored into their books as a loss somehwere, they should bear the costs (and then some) and it looks like they’re going to!

Oh yeah, and to come up w/the $52,300.00 figure, the jury is being careful, paying attention and taking notes…so the punitive aspect is not going to be lost on them.

So, the amount Mr. Bossier will (not should) be paid as “punishment for State Farm’s lackadaiscal and lackluster acts,” my ventured guess is going to be approx. $100,000.00 per year of the claim denial or non-payment of claim (however you want to say it)- so approx. a half-million dollars ($500,000.00). I hope I’m pleasantly surpised and he gets more….but that’s my prediction “on the record.”

THIS IS THE FUN PART…THE PREDICTIONS! CALL IT NOW ….NOT WHEN IT’S ANNOUNCED.

SHIRLEY HEFLIN

P.S. I really think it’s unfair that the punitive aspect of this trial in your venue is not tried under a different case #, before a different jury, so that discovery can be taken, facts discovered and the adequate time taken to present and explain to the new jury EXACTLY what (and what did not) transpire during the adjustment (and non-adjustment) of the Bossier claim.

There were 3 other trials in the Eastern District of La. involving State Farm where plaintiffs received $0 or less than $20,000.00. One tried by a person I consider to be an excellent trial lawyer, but who was woefully under-prepared for trial and did not conduct proper discovery leading to a $10,000.00 judgment when the demand I believe was close to a million on a commercial policy.

As I have said very often, State Farm is the BEST I have come across when it comes to evaluating cases for purposes of whether or not to proceed to trial. They take the measure of plaintiffs’ counsel as well as the facts and make a decision. So far, they have been 100% correct in all their decisions. Allstate is the opposite, i.e. they are the WORST when it comes to evaluating cases for purposes of trial. Another thought is that Allstate really doesn’t care about the ultimate Judgment; they don’t ever settle. Although that changed after Weiss.

Let’s see what the jury does in Bossier as far as punitives, before declaring Bossier an absolute “L”. I would love to know what the last SF offer was to Mr. Bossier.