Judge Senter has granted the motion to disqualify the remaining Katrina Group law firms (the Barrett firm and others) for paying the Rigsbys $150,000 a year as witnesses. He has also ruled that the Rigsbys cannot be a witness in any case involving Renfro or State Farm or where the Katrina Group lawyers had been counsel, and ruled that all of the Rigsby documents are to be excluded from evidence in those cases. His order is brief and blunt. He also rules that the plaintiffs will have 45 days to either get a new lawyer or to inform the court they were proceeding without a lawyer or the cases would be dismissed without prejudice (that is, they could file them again).
This is a devastating blow to the cases against State Farm, so serious that it is hard to imagine how those cases will go forward. It is really sad for the plaintiffs in those cases– who now have really spectacular malpractice claims against some folks with some deep pockets (assuming that their claims against State Farm had merit to begin with).
But it is really encouraging to see this clear and unequivocal holding that you cannot pay fact witnesses to testify in a case. The Frisby Corp. defendants in Eaton Corp. v. Frisby Corp. should be encourage to see that holding, but I think they already had this figured out.
One thing that is interesting about this decision is that about a year ago, Judge Senter initially refused to disqualify the Scruggs Katrina Group in a motion that raised some of the Rigsby issues. The Katrina Group folks tried to argue that this new motion did not have new facts in it. They also included in their filings an affidavit from Geoffrey Hazard, a nationally known ethics professor, arguing that he opined that the dealings with the Rigsbys were ok. We linked one of the Katrina Group responses, with some discussion, here. Here’s Lotus’s first post about Scruggs disqualification motions from way back in December, and with a long quote from me, long quotes and links to Rossmiller. As then, I didn’t really understand why this shouldn’t have disqualified SKG then.
I guess my question is: Weren’t the consulting fee facts before Judge Senter when he declined to disqualify SKG last year? He doesn’t refer to intervening events (e.g. the bribery case) in any way. But what changed? I may poke around in those motions to see for myself, and am curious whether Rossmiller (who was following before the bribery conspiracy was a mere gleam in Scruggs’s eye) has anything to say about it.
Here is a copy of Judge Senter disqualifying opinion explaining his decision.
Here is a copy of Judge Senter disqualifying orderr.
Thanks to YallPolitics for the heads up.
You’re right, it’s a terrible blow to the plaintiffs but undoubtedly the correct action for the Court to take. Like you, I wonder why it took so long to happen.
somslawyer, I suspect it was a process of slowly but surely wearing out every shred of Judge Senter’s patience. As a federal judge I know likes to say, “The patience of God is infinite, but let’s not push it.”
Seems like Senter has been vary careful through all of this muck he has been involved in to make sure no one gets by with any bs tactics. Maybe he was just continuing along those lines by dismissing without prejudice so the plaintiffs could still be heard?
Someone posted in a thread several months ago (http://www.folo.us/2008/02/02/some-thoughts-on-scruggs-and-the-fifth-by-nmc/) an analogy about taking one step at a time through the garden path and then being out in the middle and wondering, “how in the world did I get here?”
I bet there are a bunch of people involved from all sides of the Katrina issues (Ins Companies, Hood, policyholders, judges, et al) finding themselves on the path looking back wishing they had a “do over.”
Early on, if one of these winds vs. water cases would have made it through the process in an expedited manner, much of this angst and acrimony could have been avoided and the people left in the lurch by all of this would be much further along the road to recovery. Seems the central issue of the argument was pretty clear and if the legal system could have moved one of these cases though quickly, there wouldn’t be a bunch of people wanting a do over.
As I recall, State Farm filed several motions seeking to have Dickie/SKG disqualified because of the payments that were made to the Rigsby sisters. And you’re right, Senter never, ever, ever granted a single one of those motions. So what gives? Has the law changed in the last few months? Why is this suddenly good enough to disqualify other people, when he wouldn’t disqualify Dickie? Sounds to me like the Judge simply refused to apply the law to Dickie. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he finally applied the law on this, but it sure makes me think a whole lot less of the Judge. He should have disqualified Dickie and he knows it. Why wouldn’t he? Because it was convenient for him in settling cases and getting them off his docket? I believe he even mentioned something to that effect in one of his opinions as a basis for denying the motion to disqualify Scruggs. The Judge is a day late and a dollar short on this ruling, and the delay he caused by dragging his feet on this is part of the reason these plaintiffs are in such a bad position now.
I believe some of the wind vs. water cases were settled early on, such as Judge Guirola’s and Senaor Lott’s, according to poster brewski. It appears to me that Scruggs intent was not the try the cases individually or even to settle the cases individually, but to amass enough cases to force a “tobacco-style” settlement with himself and friends as the major benefactors.
That is the saddest part of this whole situation to me is that Scruggs used the Katrina victims to scheme for more money for himself (and certain selected others.) These hurting victims were nothing but part of a scheme to him. They would have come out much better probably if they had just hired a lawyer and gone to trial early on.
Nomiss: I agree with your #4. The poor people hurt during Katrina have lost so much. First their homes and lives, their faith in “the system” now their hope of receiving justice in their claims in a timely manner all smashed to pieces. Hell ain’t gonna be hot enough for those that have contributed more to their grief by the antics of Scruggs et al, for their personal gain at the expense of these poor folks.
Would that some “Ms. Warsaw” type, straight out of Grisham’s “King of Torts,” would sue their happy asses straight into poverty. Poetic Justice with a twist……
I suspect that we will soon see ads in the Clarion Ledger ….”If you were represented by the SKG or the KLG you may have a claim for damages. Call XYZ and Associates.”
Refresh my memory: will someone please list the SKG/KLG attorneys?
Nevermind, I just read Judge Senter’s opinion.
I am struggling with why the “associated” attorneys (e.g., Hesse & Buttersworth), other than those originally part of SKG, should be disqualified. Absent a showing that they actively participated in improper conduct or were aware of it, it is difficult for me to see why they should be disqualified. I have yet to see a deposition, trial testimony or document that implicates anyone outside the original SKG.
An argument culd be made they have been tainted, but it seems to me if the sisters are prohibited from testifying, and the documents excluded, this cures the problem. Maybe there is more to it, and there is factual evidence I haven’t seen. But with the brevity of the opinion I am just not getting it.
Joint venturers are partners. Under partnership law, partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts of another partner. Mississippi law is clear on this. E.g., Estate of Duggins. Duggins involved punitive damages which an “innocent” venturer (partner) was found jointly liable for despite lack of knowledge of or participation in the uderlying condct. But if a new partner joins a partnership, I don’t think the new partner becomes personally liable for past acts – only those committed during the existence of the partnership. By definition, the old partnership ceases, and a new partnership is created, if a new partner joins. Thus, I don’t see a basis for sanctions or liability against “associated” counsel for acts committed prior to their association – especially if there are less drastic remedies – exclusion of witnesses and evidence.
Judge Senter is one of the best judges Mississippi ever had. And I am glad he is condemning the conduct in this case. But I am concerned that plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, will be left without counsel if even attorneys who came in after the fact are disqualified. It is a nightmare to try to pick up behind someone else. I suspect there will be few willing to try.
On the other side, you will see layoffs at firms who have been defending Katrina cases. Their entire workloads just went bye-bye. You asked for it. You got it.
Iwannaknow, I had a conversation with a Jxn lawyer sometime back and he claimed that Katrina litigation would be better than asbestos because there would be no joinder of claims. Oh well.
Sometimes contract law does not allow the most sympathetic “victim” of a horrible occurrence like Hurricane Katrina an opportunity to recover, under the plain language of his or her insurance contract, against anyone. When this is the case, we have to wonder if parasites like Scruggs and the Rigsby Sisters are really offering the destitute — who have clearly lost everything — anything more than an opportunity to “sign up” and see if whatever the lawyers throw against some insurance company’s “wall” will stick. It may not be popular — on a grass roots level — to point this out, but what Judge Senter appears to be saying in these most recent orders is that the hard facts and circumstances of these cases simply do not warrant allowing “witnesses for hire” to “milk” the misery of the saddest Hurricane Katrina victims in a way that offers the “victim” nothing, even as it has the very real potential of lining the pockets of their attorneys by way of a coercive “settlement.”
Excuse a stupid nonlawyer question. I see above that the documents that the sisters produced are now excluded. Are they excluded just in the form of having been produced by the sisters? Can they be somehow “rediscovered” and produced as evidence that way?
duckweedpond, the documents could be procured through ordinary discovery. But they probably would be subject to many privileges, so that the discovery would be difficult.
iwannaknow: Judge Senter is applying a derivative of the criminal exclusionary rule as a remedial measure. Since the other members of the KLG have had access to the Rigsbys, their knowledge of the facts, their knowledge of the documents, and to some extent the documents themselves, disqualifying all of them was the only way to be sure that the “fruit of the poisoned tree” still wasn’t used to gain an advantage. This produces a harsh result for the clients, no doubt, but as NMC points out, there are potentially some very good legal malpractice claims out there against people with deep pockets.
Our family got SIX requests to join the Scruggs Katrina group – even in the broken mail system of the post Katrina coast. Requests were also stuffed into the Sun Herald almost weekly for months. While we did not join in, sometimes it looked like a ray of hope in a sunken world. Thank goodness we had the ability to get back in business with out joining the den of thieves who were brought down by a fight over a $26 Million fee. No bitterness here. I feel sick for the poor victims of this whole mess, some of whom still have abandoned slabs and are living in those horrible little, tiny Katrina cages.
While we all hate to follow another lawyer deep into a case, this is a circumstance where the bar (not “the Bar”) has to set aside this reluctance, and in this case disgust, and take on these cases to give the wronged clients a shot at some relief, first against their insurers and then against their lawyers.
The legal malpractice claims are only as good as the plaintiffs’ claims against the insurance company(ies).
Somslawyer, I doubt you would have to follow SKG/KLG “deep” into many of these cases. With the exception of a few pending cases, I suspect most of the KLG files against State Farm having been sitting in a “settlement inventory” somewhere, with no actual work done on the files. So, people who signed up months or even up to a year ago (since the original State Farm settlement with SKG) have had no actual work done on their cases. Yet another way in which these folks have been prejudiced by the court’s incredible delay in disqualifying these guys.
judge senter should refer these lawyers to the bar for discipline.
somslawyer: legal malpractice requires you to prove the case within the case – ie, the lawyer was negligent and but for the lawyer’s negligence you would have won. SKG will get sued. But I wonder how many of the underlying cases have big value
Justsittinhere, I agree. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it. I plan on sending a copy of this ruling to the Bar, and I hope they use it as an opportunity to make a very public statement about why judges must enforce ethics rules across the board on all lawyers and why they must do so in a timely way. I am just distraught, and have been for some time, that one of our “better” judges allowed this sort of thing to go on in his courtroom for so long and never did anything about it. Whatever his motives, the Judge’s delay has caused a lot more damage than any misconceived good that ever could have come out of letting these guys continue to play ball in his courtroom.
somslawyer – I referred to possible “taint” to associated lawyers in my comment – I think this is the same as what you are talking about – fruit of the poisonous tree. I merely suggested that excluding all associated lawyers goes too far if the witnesses and documents are otherwise excluded.
Judge Senter almost always gets it right. I just happen to disagree with this aspect of his ruling.
Don’t forget. the internet is here for good. the associated lawyers are probably not privy to a whole lotta stuff that is not already floating around somewhere even if they are now out of the case.
I am a lawyer. I am not involved in Katrina. I hope the plaintiffs find other lawyers. I have some doubts.
Today’s development kills the RICO case, but it is not necessarily a bad thing for the remaining plaintiffs. Other lawyers have done better than Scruggs in the cases that went to trial, by simply focusing on the insurer’s failure to prove that flooding caused the damage.
The sisters were going to be very questionable witnesses. Some of the best evidence, such as the engineering firm’s emails, came through discovery, not from the sisters.
Wouldn’t the new lawyers be able to subpoena the duplicate engineering reports? Is there any reason the new lawyers could not subpoena engineering emails and other files that are public knowledge? If they have the engineering reports and the emails they don’t need the Rigsbys or Brian Ford to show that State Farm acted in bad faith.
Most of the SKG State Farm clients took the settlement offer in January 2007. The sides agreed to the terms in November 2006 but State Farm held it hostage to put pressure on Scruggs to pressure Hood to drop the criminal probe. Remember, that is what Scruggs supposedly sent Balducci and Patterson to do. The Scruggs clients’ settlement was separate from the Woullard class settlement that Judge Senter rejected.
Lott was not one of the first to settle. He waited until at least April 2007 after Zach deposed the E.A. Renfroe adjuster who handled the big shot cases.
Judge Guirola sued Nationwide, not State Farm. He was not involved in the State Farm litigation except that his recusal from all insurance cases helped create the huge backlog of cases.
As I read Judge Senter’s order, the Rigsby documents cannot be used by plaintiffs who were represented by Katrina Group lawyers. That means at all– they can’t be “discovered” by other means and brought in.
NMC or others, what are the chances of a successful appeal? Any response from the KLG to their clients yet? Also, I cannot believe this ruling is not bigger news in the world at large. It has been a long time coming.
Also, a prayer to those recently impacted by the storms the last few days.
I saw a couple of comments about Judge Senter being very slow in make this ruling. That makes me wonder if some of his slowness came about from two very powerful members of Congress making threatening speeches in the Senate and the House.
I would suspect that even a federal judge has some fear of our Congress. I know I do. That bunch scares the bejeebers out of me. Both sides of the isle.
I am not at lawyer, never played one on TV and have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so I have a question for NMC,
I noticed you put this disclaimer on your post about a legal malpractice lawsuit:: “(assuming that their claims against State Farm had merit to begin with).”
If the suit has already gone this far, doesn’t it make sense that their claim does have merit?
NMC, Judge Senter’s order explicitly differentiated between admissibility of docs stolen by the Rigsbys as opposed to docs discovered through legitimate means.
Jim in Tupelo….I am not a lawyer either so you may simply wait for NMC to respond…..but what little I do know is that the mere presence of a lawsuit for a length of time does not mean it has merit. Someone above mentioned “settlement drawer” files.
It is very possible a case will linger on simply due to a lack of prosecution or discovery. The numbers of cases were so huge I suspect this is not uncommon. Many plaintiffs may be shocked to see how very little a lawyer has actually done since the lawsuit was filed. This is especially true if the firm is just pushing for settlement, either global or individual.
I am uncertain if that would be a further basis for some type of legal malpractice claim. I’m sure it is not but plaintiffs and subsequent counsel may have a challenging time this far removed from the event.
Jim:
There’s reference up-thread to legal malpractice suits requiring you prove “the suit within the suit”– you have to prove you should have won the lawsuit. The length it was pending doesn’t show that. However, SKG is going to have to contend with their public crowing that they had SF for fraud, etc. if sued for malpractice.
NMC: if the plaintiffs traveled under a bad faith breach of fiduciary contract rather than a negligence theory; case within a case would not have to be proved.
ZM in 27
You’re right, Judge Senter did say that if the plaintiffs can show they got document through legitimate discovery, they get to use them. Given that, the evidentiary sanction against the plaintiffs is not as severe as I’d thought. The Rigsbys were never going to be major witnesses in and of themselves. In fact, it probably would make the cases easier to try to not have to explain them and Scruggs.
justsitinhere:
But what damages if the plaintiff did not have a lawsuit to begin with?
NMC, I do think a lot of those docs would be hard to get through legitimate discovery.
NMC, Thanks that helps my pore ole rezinin ability.
Now more questions.
Is it just me or is the BAR set a little bit higher for malpractice suits against lawyers that it is for oh say, Doctors, Realtors, Accountants or even my plumber?
Is not the BAR association really a guild run by and for lawyers? If so, why do they seem to have so much more power than the Board of Realtors or even the United Auto Workers?
Last question. what time is happy hour at the corner BAR
I don’t think so, Jim– if the lawsusit wasn’t any good, the plaintiff has no damages.
In a malpractice action against a doctor, say, if the doctor makes a mistake and the patient isn’t hurt, no lawsuit. No harm no foul. If the plaintiff had no lawsuit, same situation.
All in all I think realtors probably are harder to sue for their screwing up.
NMC: uh, i have to think on it. scruggs and group signed plaintiffs up at reduced contingency in order to undercut everyone else signing plaintiffs up. doubtful that plaintiffs will be able to get representation now at same reduced rate. perhaps difference in legal fee charged, plus delay costs, etc.
The “suit within a suit” issue is somewhat peculiar to lawyers but only in its clarity. It is not unique. The question arises in determining the plaintiff’s damages, not the defendant lawyer’s negligence or other wrongdoing. In medical malpractice litigation, the question is often proving that “but for” the doctor’s negligence, the patient would have had a reasonable likelihood of a substantially better outcome. That’s essentially what you have to prove in legal malpractice cases.
In fact, in the SKG and S-lessKG cases, since most of the cases have never been resolved, the issue is going to be how the plaintiffs have been damaged, if at all, by the delay in resolution of their cases. If as a result of attorney misconduct, they were to be denied the use of evidence that otherwise would have been admissible, there would be a substantial issue. But if the damage is mere delay in resolution of their claims, which can be compensated for by pre-judgment interest from the insurance company, many will have no provable damages, whatever the outcome of the “case within the case.”
Also, since the misconduct was directed at others, not the clients, they have no hope of punitive damages that I can see.
Justsittinhere, you make a good point about increased fees and costs (this latter only if there are duplicated costs). I doubt any of the SKG plaintiffs who seek new counsel will be willingly paying any costs incurred by their former counsel or any fees based on quantum meruit. I hope the SKG attorneys aren’t bold enough to even ask.
The main case this affects is McIntosh which had two engineering reports with the Lecky King post-it on the first saying “Do not pay, Do not discuss.”
However, the second report was sent to the McItoshes with their claim denial, so it is in play. If you ask State Farm if there were a previous engineering assessment, wouldn’t they have to produce it? All you are missing is the post-it note. Also, the engineering firm’s emails have a lot of back and forth about the McIntosh reports. The first report is the main basis for King’s threat to fire FAEC and then there is Brian Ford’s email recapping his phone conversation with King.the emails were obtained in discovery not from the Rigsbys.
This business of paying witnesses as “whistleblowers,” an unsavory practice that was exposed but condoned in the tobacco litigation in Mississippi, has always been unethical. Finally, a federal court decided enough is enough. Thank you Judge Senter for having the cajones to call ‘em as you see ‘em and stop this nonsense. So many of our state court judges would have given this the green light, particularly if some supposedly ethical professor from an Ivy League school said it was ok.
Harrumph, Word Dog lets not bad mouth my alma maters (med and undergrad not law). Although I cannot speak for the legal profession, my fancy pants sheepskins -in Latin mind you so I cant read em-count for little in the medical profession up nawth heah. I am the quintessential ‘not GOB’ in this neck of the woods
Agree completely about the witnesses tho….
Can any of you tell me just why anyone living on the coast would not have had flood insurance? My insurance company does not pay for a flooded house unless I have flood insurance. And I am not unaware of the argument that the wind caused the damage.I just don’t understand why they were not better prepared.
Moore: War’s over, man. Senter dropped the big one.
Dickie: Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until I decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Nutt: Germans?
Moore: Forget it, he’s rolling.
Dickie: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough… [thinks hard] " the tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go!
Ah, A1A – 43, you brought back a happy memory of Belushi, another moth who flew too close to the flame just like Dickie.
Dixie K. – 42, many families were told by their insurance agents that they were out of the flood plain established by the Federal Guvmint and thus did not need the flood coverage. The agents were being honest. The flood plain was based on the “worst case secario” which, up until Katrina, was Camille. Living on the Coast has its rewards but it has its risks as well. Some are predictable although the extent of that predictable risk may not be known. Will there be another hurricane to hit the Coast? Assuredly, yes. That is a predictable risk. When? Nobody knows. Will it be as bad as Katrina? Same answer, nobody knows.
Dixie,
Many of the plaintiffs did have flood insurance but not enough to replace their homes. More importantly, not one house in Mississippi was destroyed by flooding alone. We had four or so hours of hurricane force winds with peak gusts around 140 mph before the storm surge. The insurance company has the obligation to pay under the wind policy unless it can prove that the damage was caused by flooding or another excluded cause. The insurers had the obligation to do a fair adjustment. Many did; State Farm did not.
As for the people who did not have flood insurance, most of those were 20, 25 feet above sea level, well beyond the flood hazard area according to the flood maps. If you bought a home that was not in the flood hazard area, your realtor, banker, and insurance agent would all tell you that you did not need flood insurance.
Finally, there was the Camille test. Everyone though Camille was the worst case scenario, so if a property was not flooded by Camille, it was not thought to be at risk of flooding.
The law is out of touch with reality when it comes to hurricanes. A hurricane begins with wind. If not for the drop in barometric pressure and the forces of atmospherics and wind, there would be no water damage. To even imply that “flooding” is the same thing as a “hurricane” is nonsense and not reality.
Amen, jsh.
Now to catch up on what everybody’s been saying all weekend — looks like I’m in for an intriguing morning’s reading, yum.
It came to me this morning how this soap opera should end. Johnny Jones could team up with Merkel, Slater, and others to form the “We Hate Scruggs Katrina Group.” They could come in and clean up the mess. Motto: “We don’t pay fact witnesses, but we will make State Farm PAY YOU!”
Nature Lover, no disrespect to you alma mater intended–my comment was directed only to the professor who submitted an affidavit swearing that what these paid witnesses were up to was ethical, when it plainly wasn’t. Hope you are finding life good “up theah” and are able to visit south often.
Intriguing reading indeed. This issue of Judge Senter’s delay really bites, especially when you recall this passage from him featured in the December 22 post NMC links to above:
As you note, NMC, he doesn’t mention the intervening bribery case. So if/when your close rereading prises out exactly what is so much more compelling in April than it was in September or December, I’ll be mighty interested in hearing about it. Until such notice, y’all can find me in curious georgette’s camp.
Word Dog 48, NatLov lives (and photographs beauties) in Pontotoc these days. Got to do he visitin’ up theah instead of ‘tother way ’round.
Re: Dixie @ 41 and Researcher @44
Dixie, I really appreciate your question and Researcher’s response.
Not only were folks told they did not need flood insurance (if they were not in flood zone) , but many companies would argue against it. I moved to Coast in the 80s and did not experience Camille on the Coast. I have always lived neared the beach and was always floored that I was not required to have flood insurance. Each time I moved, I had to insist to get flood insurance. A friend of mine who moved down here about 6 months before the storm had similar situation, and luckily stood her ground with her insurance agent despite repeated arguments.
Many homes south of railroad tracks and close to bayous were not considered in the flood zone. Many that went through Camille and did not flood in those areas (and so were not required to have flood insurance) felt very safe that they would not flood as Camille was considered worst case scenario.
In addition, after the storm, lowball estimates from insurance companies on wind damage made rebuilding or fixing damage difficult. I was lucky in that I did not have flood damage but had to go back and forth with adjuster 6 times on estimate as he miscalculated roof square footage, accidently deleted items from estimate, etc. I was fortunate to have family that knew construction and could tell me what was wrong on estimates and the time to go through each version to make sure it was correct, etc. Was not looking to upgrade house, put dollars in pocket, or put one over on insurance company, just trying to get house back to livable condition and they made it very difficult to do so as each delay created more problems due to decay, mold, etc. (Example: a tarp over roof and skylights does not make house completely waterproof from rain).
It is very discouraging that the Scruggs situation could impact the accountability of how the insurance companies behaved to its policyholders and continue to post high profits.
Amen, partcoast. I’m glad you had the info and time to get that taken care of properly, but dang it, you shouldn’t have needed to deal with all that!
Dear Roger: since Jones was part of the SKG that paid the Rigsby’s I doubt he could qualify for representing State Farm policyholders again. NTM he has been co-counsel in that and the Wilson v. Scruggs matter which puts him on treacherous joint venturer ground with the big guy.
Partial coastal 51 said:
“they made it very difficult to do so as each delay created more problems due to decay, mold, etc.”
Question: Can the insurance companies be made to pay for these type problems?
"We don’t pay fact witnesses, but we will make State Farm PAY YOU! "
Sheer Shakespeare in a Chevy.
Zenner, I’m glad you can appreciate, in a good ole aesthetical way, a prime advertising slogan. I think I missed my calling: ad man for lawyers. I could make a living off Richard Schwartz alone.
JSH, good point. I had forgotten that Johnny participated in the payments to the Rigsby sisters.
Richie needs some sloganeering help. But more to the point, he’s got his own problem with paying witnesses.
Oh my, now I’m kinda surprised this is the first some of us have heard of Richie. Real piece of work, inny?
One more point. We had surge flooding in St. Louis and Biloxi bays and up and out from the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers that had not happened in Camille or any other previous hurricane. Keesler AFB had no water from the south/Gulf but had extensive flooding from the north/Bay. That wrap-around and spillover bay and river flooding did not have as much force as the surge straight off the Gulf, but State Farm treated all flooding as equally destructive. The McIntosh house was north of Biloxi Bay on the Tchoutacabouffa River, far from the Gulf, but the second engineering report demanded by State Farm said that three feet of flood water had knocked down the walls. I don’t believe that is possible. The first report had blamed wind-driven debris from neighboring houses that were destroyed before the surge.
When my daughter was one, she would sit in the floor and look longingly at the picture of Richard Schwartz on the back of the phone book. Whenever she was grouchy, we just gave her that Schwartz picture and she calmed right down. So he gets em hooked early.
Hurricane turned your life upside down? We’ll turn that wreck into a check! Call We Hate Scruggs Katrina Group today! 1-800-We Hate D
We Hate Scruggs Katrina Group–we’ll show you the money!
Oh yeah — frantic car-salesman voice and all.
We Hate Scruggs Katrina Group: Puttin’ the Corn on the Ground Since 2008.
One call that’s all. He defines ambulance chaser. And we have one of his billboards accross the street from the University Medical Center ED entrance. Used to have TWO of them. Go figure. http://www.1call.org/attorneys/