State Farm wants Scruggs off case

[timNms]

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps ... 1/70619014

In a motion filed today in Gulfport, State Farm contends that Scruggs “committed clear violations of several state and national ethical rules and should, at a minimum, be disqualified from this case.”

You can read the entire story on the Hattiesburg American's website above.

[MGC]

State Farm and several other insurance companies have lost all the high profile wind/water cases. Sounds like they are getting desperate.....MGC

[stormcrow]

This all goes back to two sisters who stole documents from State Farm. They walked away from whistle blower status when the turned the documents over to Scruggs and accepted a $150,000 (each) contract to work for him. I have no problem in SF getting nailed when they act wrongly, and in some cases it appears they did. I do have a problem with theft for profit. If Mr. Scruggs is in contents (as the Fed Judge has indicated) then he should suffer the consequences. His action and the polical grandstanding by officals in MS have delayed the settlements.

[timNms]

My question is this. When there is nothing left but a slab, how can the insurance companies claim that the damage to those houses were strictly from the surge?

On WLOX's Hurricane Katrina: South Mississippi's Story, one of their news anchors was in her home on the morning that Katrina moved ashore. She was on the phone with the studio when water stated coming into the house. She said her husband said "We've got to go!" She said suddenly, the roof started flapping, then flew off of the house. She and her husband had to jump out of a window onto a tub before the house collapsed. In the end, their house was a total loss. She couldn't find it because of all the rubble piled up from the surge. I wonder if her insurance company said the damage was from surge alone?

[MGC]

The insurance companies have the burden of proof. If they can't prove that the home was destroyed by flood alone then they must pay on the wind. This is why they are losing the slab cases.....MGC

[timNms]

The insurance companies have the burden of proof. If they can't prove that the home was destroyed by flood alone then they must pay on the wind. This is why they are losing the slab cases.....MGC

MGC,

In other words, the ins. companies are trying to rip people off by saying that it was the surge that destroyed their homes, not wind. But clearly, by the example that I gave, that is not always the case.

My family and I are well inland, by about 100 miles. There was no storm surge at my house, yet we had several thousands of dollars in damage here. Common sense will tell one that the wind was quite a bit worse along the coast and it stands to reason that there would have been major wind damage before the surge. Katrina's winds relentlessly pounded the coast for hours, beginning during that Sunday evening and continuing through the day on Monday. Of course, the surge wiped away the evidence of wind damage and made it easy for the ins. companies to say "Surge damage".

[MSRobi911]

The insurance companies have the burden of proof. If they can't prove that the home was destroyed by flood alone then they must pay on the wind. This is why they are losing the slab cases.....MGC

This is so true MGC, but we still have to sue them to try and get our money! It is totally crazy!

Mary

[stormcrow]

I would think the report of the second eyewall will be good news for the homeowners, and those companies that tried to downplay the wind damage will have to rethink.