Updated as noted below. Updated entries have bold-faced dates.
Yesterday, as I was trying to sort out why Judge Senter chose to disqualify the Katrina Group lawyers at this point, I started putting together a chronology of events related to disqualification, setting them in a timeline with events in various State Farm cases (Shows, McIntosh, State Farm v Hood, Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby, the bribery attempt and others).
These cases center around pursuit of State Farm over Katrina insurance claims and various fall-out from that. I’ll provide a small cast of characters here, all familiar to regular Folo-ers. The Rigsbys are sisters who had been working for E.A. Renfroe & Co., adjusting claims for State Farm from Katrina losses. Sometime in the Dec. 2005-Jan. 2006 time-frame, they took thousands of pages of documents relating to adjusting those claims and gave them to Dickie Scruggs, who intended to use them as evidence of State Farm fraud in adjusting claims. Dickie Scruggs was working with a group of law firms called the Scruggs Katrina Group in pursuing State Farm. At the same time, Mississippi attorney general Jim Hood had a civil case against State Farm and other insurers about the Katrina claims and was starting up a criminal grand jury investigation against State Farm.
That said, here’s the chronology:
3/8/06:
4/26/06: About seven months after Katrina, the Rigsbys file a whistleblower/qui tam suit against State Farm alleging that State Farm has defrauded the federal government in adjusting Katrina claims by moving claims into federal flood insurance. The Rigsbys seek to pursue claims on behalf of the federal government for that fraud. The suit is filed under seal in the federal court in South Mississippi.
6/3 or 6/06: The Rigsbys inform State Farm officials that they have taken copies of documents they say show fraud in claims handling, and State Farm orders they cease work on adjusting State Farm claims.
7/1/06: the Rigsbys become "consultants " for the Scruggs law firm.
8/25/06: the Rigsbys go on national television on 20/20. During the story, they show claims documents relating to Thomas McIntosh’s claims against State Farm. Earlier that month, Judge DeLaughter, Balducci, Langston and Ed Peters finish putting the fix in place in Wilson v. Scruggs.
9/1/06: E.A. Renfroe & Co. and Co. sue the Rigsbys in Alabama over taking the documents. This is Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby. Renfroe v. Rigsby Complaint alleges that the Rigsby sisters have taken jobs with the Scruggs firm. It’s clear by then that Renfroe and State Farm knew something about the conculting contracts.
10/23/06: The Scruggs Katrina Group files suit on behalf of Thomas McIntosh against State Farm. SKG and its partisans have always said this is the worst case State Farm has to face, basing that on two engineering reports, first one saying the hurricane damage to the McIntosh’s house was from wind and a later engineering opinion saying the damage was from wind and water.
12/8/06: Judge Acker in Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby enters an order that the Rigsbys and all of their agents are to return all copies of the documents the Rigsbys took. The injunction contains an exception that documents can be disclosed to law enforcement. The Rigsbys do not tell the court in the injunction hearing or their responses to the injunction motion that they no longer have the documents. One set is in the hands of Dickie Scruggs, another the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, and a third Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
12/11/06: A bond is posted on the Renfroe injunction and it takes effect.
12/12/06 and 12/13/06: Scruggs is trying to deal with the Renfroe injunction. He emails back and forth with Mississippi Assistant A.G. Courtney Schloemer, proposing a document hand-off –that he is going to respond to Judge Acker’s injunction by giving his set of the documents to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood in order to avoid giving them to Renfroe as directed by Judge Acker, the point apparently being to try to assure that State Farm goes into a Mississippi grand jury investigation not knowing what is in the Rigsby documents. Schloemer responds that Scruggs should make sure this is cleared with Acker, but nothing is done about that. Even so, Scruggs gives his set of documents to Hood.
12/18/06: Hood issues a grand jury subpoena to State Farm for a January grand jury appearance.
12/19/06: In Hood’s suit against the insurers over the wind/water exclusion, the motion to reconsider filed by the insurers gets denied and the case gets sent back to state courts in Hinds County.
Late 12/06 and 1/07: SKG and State Farm appear to be lurching towards a global class-action settlement, with some strong-arming being done to bring Jim Hood into line.
1/5/07: In the Alabama case, Renfroe moves that the court compel the Rigbys to show cause why they are not in contempt of court for failure to return the documents. This gets set for a hearing before Judge Acker on 1/19.
1/9/07: SKG moves in the Rigsby qui tam action, which is still under seal, for permission to disclose the existence of that action to Judge Acker. The Motion to Disclose Action Under Seal makes clear that SKG hopes that disclosure of the qui tam action may head off a finding of contempt of court.
1/11/07: The Rigsbys respond on the contempt issue in the Renfroe suit, saying for the first time that they do not have the Renfroe documents any longer. On the same day, the court in South Mississippi authorizes disclosure of the qui tam action to Judge Acker. U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in Birmingham files a pleading asking Judge Aker for an ex parte status conference in the Renfroe case. The judge immediately rules he will deal with this at the show-cause hearing on the 19th. The U.S. Attorney files another pleading saying: "The purpose of this status conference would be to disclose to the Court a confidential sensitive investigatory matter of which the United States believes that this Court should be aware. "
1/1 to 1/14/07: Jim Hood appears to be a sticking point in putting together a global settlement. Scruggs sends Patterson and Balducci to put the word to him that he better get on board with the settlement SKG is working out with State Farm. Patterson and Balducci are probably not the only messengers sent to deliver this word.
1/17/07: Jim Hood’s State Farm grand jury session begins.
1/18/07: SKG partner Don Barrett emails State Farm’s national lawyer, Sheila Burnbaum, about global settlement efforts: "Your proposal to Hood is fair ".If Hood lacks the wisdom to go through with this deal, it would be in State Farm’s best interest to proceed just with us, and we offer to do that. " He notes a settlement without Hood "vastly reduces the chance Hood will go forward with an indictment. " "It may well be that Hood has become wary of ethics issues and has decided he has to put some distance between the civil litigation and the criminal investigation. Going forward with us now solves that problem. " "That Hood may fail his state is not your fault or ours. "
1/19/07 (Friday): At the hearing on whether the Rigsbys are in contempt for not turning over the documents, Judge Acker in Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby enters an order for Dickie Scruggs to show cause why he is not in contempt of court. The Rigsbys are off the hook on contempt because they don’t have any documents to return. The show-cause hearing is initially set for February 27 and later moved to March 19. At the same time, Judge Aker declines to hold the ex parte hearing requested by the U.S. Attorney on January 11. Also on this day, according to Hood, his prosecutors tell him that the criminal case against State Farm is not worth pursuing.
1/23/07 (Tuesday): Scruggs Katrina Group announce the global class action settlement of the State Farm Katrina claims. Jim Hood writes State Farm that he’s ceasing the grand jury investigation against it.
1/26/07: Judge Senter enters a preliminary opinion that he is doubtful about approving the State Farm class action settlement. A hearing is set for February 28 –the day after the date set for the contempt hearing against Scruggs in Renfroe.
1/19/07: Scruggs and the national lawyer for State Farm, Sheila Birnbaum, have a pretty hostile exchange about Scruggs’s demand that the dropping of the Renfroe v. Rigsby suit be part of the global settlement between SKG and State Farm. Scruggs writes of "[o]ur disappointment in your lack of resolve in securing dismissal of the Renfroe matter " " It will not "be without consequences given that its dismissal was a sine qui non to our settlement. " Scruggs states that the motion to settle will be withdrawn if Renfroe is not resolved. He states that the concern is not attorneys but the "Rigsbys as targets of a harassing SLAP suit. " He concludes, "We hope that you will honor your commitment to "get this taken care of’ before the trumped up contempt hearing on February 27th. " This time, you have chosen the wrong population to underestimate. " The letter shows email copies to Jim Hood, Trent Lott, Gene Taylor, Bennie Thompson, George Dale, the Rigsbys, and Don Barrett.
1/21/07: Sheila Birnbaum, representing State Farm, writes back, denying that any such deal to dismiss the Renfroe case was made or that State Farm has control of the Renfroe case, and expressing shock that Scruggs’s letter was sent to political figures. She quotes Scruggs’s statement to Judge Senter in the class action case about how beneficial the settlement would be to the State Farm claimants class, and then says: "We simply cannot understand why the interests of class members would be subordinated to the interests of you, Cori Moran and Kerri Rigsby. How can you condition a settlement that would result in substantial benefits to class members on dismissal of a lawsuit " in which the class members have no interest, without creating a conflict of interest? " (I previously noted the irony of State Farm’s solicitude for a class of Katrina-damaged policy holders as expressed in this letter.)
2/23/07: the Renfroe show cause hearing is continued.
2/28/07: in a hearing on the State Farm class action settlement, Judge Senter again indicates reluctance to approve the settlement. Also on this day, Jim Hood testifies before a House committee in Washington about Katrina insurance claims.
3/12/07: Scruggs withdraws his motion to certify the class in global settlement with State Farm, signifying the end of the January 23rd settlement. Although State Farm thereafter makes some half-hearted attempts to hold the settlement together, it has by now completely disintegrated. The only piece remaining, Hood’s agreement to call off the grand jury investigation, will become part of a new battle with State Farm just before the state elections in the fall.
3/15/07: the complaint is filed in Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs, the lawsuit over Scruggs Katrina Group attorneys fees. At this point there are $25,000,000 in fees to distribute from cases that have already been resolved.
3/19/07: Show-cause hearing on Scruggs’s contempt in Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby. It does not go well for Scruggs.
4/11/07: Jim Hood testifies before the Senate Commerce Committee about Katrina insurance claims.
6/15/07: Judge Acker asks the U.S. Attorney to prosecute Dickie Scruggs for contempt of court relating to the Rigsby documents.
6/19/07: State Farm moves to disqualify Scruggs Katrina Group in McIntosh v. State Farm. This motion raises Scruggs’s relationship with the Rigsbys and specifically raises the $150,000 consulting fee the Rigsbys are being paid by Scruggs, along with the purloined documents. Here is the State Farm memorandum for the first Motion to Disqualify.
6/20/07: SKG files Shows v State Farm. This is the RICO (racketeering) action, based on the Rigsby documents.
7/16/07: Jim Hood writes N.D. Alabama U.S. Attorney Alice Martin asking her not to prosecute Scruggs for contempt relating to the Rigsby documents because Scruggs is a “confidential informant” for Hood in relation to the Rigsby documents.
7/25/07: Alice Martin declines to prosecute Scruggs for contempt of court.
7/31/07: Judge Acker appoints special prosecutors to prosecute Scruggs for contempt of court.
8/1/07: The Rigsby qui tam action in S.D. Mississippi is unsealed and from this point slowly begins to move. By April, 2008, State Farm has been served with process in the lawsuit.
8/21/07: The contempt prosecution is filed in Alabama by the special prosecutors against Dickie Scruggs.
8/23/07: Jim Hood has a grand jury subpoena issued to State Farm.
9/12/07: Judge Senter enters his Order denying disqualification, expressing no opinion on the merits of the motion, instead noting that State Farm has known of the Rigsby situation since, at the earliest, August of the prior year (when the Rigsbys were on 20/20) and that the company has delayed almost a year in filing the motion, while at the same time continuing to negotiate and settle cases with the Scruggs Katrina Group, and at the same time the SKG was gathering up more clients to sue State Farm. Thus, Judge Senter notes, hundreds of plaintiffs are relying on SKG as lawyers. Specifically noting that as the context, and saying that in isolation (that is, if this was just one case) the motion might have been timely, Judge Senter denies the motion to disqualify.
9/13/07: State Farm responds to the new grand jury subpoena by filing its lawsuit against Jim Hood, asking that Hood’s efforts to reopen a grand jury investigation against State Farm be enjoined because of the January agreement with Hood to quit prosecuting State Farm.
9/14/07: The federal court issues a temporary restraining order restraining Hood’s attempt to reopen the grand jury investigation.
9/18/07: Judge Lackey and Tim Balducci start talking about what Scruggs might do for Judge Lackey in very concrete terms.
11/1/07: An injunction hearing in State Farm v. Hood begins with (among other things) serious efforts by Jim Hood to stay off the witness stand. Meanwhile, in Calhoun City, Tim Balducci is arrested by the F.B.I., immediately becomes a government witness, and goes to visit the Scruggs Law Office wearing a wire.
Note: This chronology does not focus on the events relating to the bribery prosecution. I’ve dealt with the events from November through January 15 in a detailed chronology in this post. In January, as the transcripts from the period May through November, 2007, began to surface in discovery in U.S. v. Scruggs, I detailed those in a series of six narrative posts beginning with this one and ending with this one. A number of transcripts have emerged since that series, along with live testimony by Balducci and the F.B.I. agent, so those posts have become somewhat dated due to new developments. The posts do provide a pretty complete narrative of the events in the bribery case from early May, 2007 until November 1st.
11/6/07: Election day for state offices in Mississippi. Jim Hood reelected as Attorney General.
11/8/07: Following an 11/7 status and settlement conference, both sides in State Farm v. Hood agree to extend the injunction indefinitely, with each side having the right to move to reopen if they see fit. This essentially “parks” the case.
11/28/07: Arrests and indictments in U.S. v. Scruggs.
1/18/08: Jim Hood moves to reopen State Farm v. Hood.
1/19/08: Mike Moore responds to the motion to disqualify in McIntosh by moving to withdraw from the McIntosh case, filing an odd pleading that details his version of his role in the cases and apparently is designed to make clear he had nothing to do with the grand jury proceeding against State Farm.
Update: Added the date of the 20/20 show, and the date and circumstances the Rigsbys left E.A. Renfro & Co. Added the date the consulting contract started and the circumstances the Rigsbys told State Farm of the document life and its date (June 3 or 4). Added the statement of what the Rigsbys showed on national television. These are all from the complaint in the Renfroe & Co. v. Rigsby case and from these pleadings in the same case: Renfroe motion to expedite discovery, Rigsby Answer to Complaint, and Affidavit of Renfroe. The Jim Hood Senate and House testimony was added, h/t to Researcher in comments, as was information about Hood’s suit against the insurers over the concurrent clause provisions in the policies.
You must have covered a large wall with a long sheet of butcher paper (no metaphor intended) to organize these events. I commend you. What’s needed are all the annotations that will answer the “why’s?” and “so what’s?” that naturally arise from the events. Good work, Tommy.
Ben out.
Mr. Cole I have a question to ask you, please email me at ppquinn84@gmail.com so we can talk in a private setting.
Thanks.
Who were State Farm’s lawyers in the various actions?
They seem to have changed horses at each phase from a settlement team to a prepare for a trial defense team to a move to disqualify everyone team.
This is understandable, but does not justify the new lawyers intentionally misrepresenting the actions of the previous attorneys on behalf of State Farm.
For example the whole “Jim Hood coerced us to settle,” argument was known by State Farm to be false. State Farm coerced Scruggs to coerce Hood, and all the State Farm lawyers should have known that.
Researcher, my understanding is that they had Butler, Snow leading on the grand jury issues, including the State Farm v Hood case. I do not think they were directly in the Renfroe case. They had Dan Webb and some lawyers on the coast in the McIntosh case. I do not know who is doing Shows. At the top level all of this is being directed by Skadden Arps in NYC.
I’m about to slightly update this post.
oh, and researcher: While we don’t always have the same p.o.v., if you think I’ve got this chronology close to right, I’ll feel pretty good about it.
One date I have not pulled out is the date Jim Hood testified in Washington.
Hood’s testimony:
Feb. 28, 2007 in the House
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/hr022807.shtml
April 11, 2007 in the Senate
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=7bb4fe91-37d4-46ee-9a02-71a5766bd56e
When and where did State Farm allege or imply that Scruggs gave the Rigsbys a list of SKG clients and the sisters downloaded those specific files?
Was that argument made in the State Farm motion to disqualify, in the Renfroe case in Alabama, or somewhere else?
The curious thing about that is that I think that argument was not made until after State Farm had settled the first round of SKG cases, the ones whose files would have been downloaded by the sisters. State Farm held the settlement of those cases hostage in order to get Scruggs to pressure Hood to drop the criminal investigation. In other words, State Farm did not want to disqualify Scruggs until after Hood relented.
The remaining cases with disqualified lawyers are mostly newer plaintiffs signed up after the first settlement, so their files probably were not downloaded by the Rigsbys, and their cases may have had no need for the Rigsbys’ testimony. That is another reason why these plaintiffs may be just fine with new lawyers and no tainted documents or testimony.
I’ve just obtained a small mountain of information about the attorney general’s lawsuit against the insurers and will be folding that into the chronology as soon as I can.
I’m curious now about the dates that SKG began filing suits.
In Judge Senters’ motion Friday He is stating “Ethical Lapses”…In NMC post 01/18/07, Don B’s email to S Burnbaum “It may well be that Hood HAS BECOME “wary” of Ethics Issues”..and so on and so forth. As a Public Official should he or should he not be investigated by the Ms.Bar as to knowing about Ethical Lapses and not doing anything about it. Something happened, could this be what it was.
Researcher at #9- didn’t Cory testify to the fact for the first time in her January 2008 deposition that they had in fact printed the files from a Scruggs client list? In her deposition of Nov 06 I believe she gave a differing story saying that the list of files printed came from a State Farm engineering firm referral list of claims they sent out to get an engineer’s opinion on.
I would still like to know in the timeline above (which is OUTSTANDING) what each of their depositions say to review them as to significant facts like the one above that totally differ in the depositions.
Does anyone know how many depositions Cori has given and how many Kerri has given? It would be nice to see a copy of each and every deposition they’ve given in these key cases to outline all of the differences in information they have supplied.
Another question…does anyone know if Connie Moran , Mayor in MS is related to Cori Moran or her ex husband Paul(who was also a Renfroe independent adjuster)? Very curious since she is now standing behind Gene Taylor’s push for the wind coverage under the flood program and a recent news article had said she was taking homeowner complaints on insurance issues in her area. I find the last name leaving an interesting question as to any relationship to the whistleblower?
Well when NMC fills the blanks Concerned lists at 12 it’l probably be in a book.
The King of Torts Toots.
Or Lotus you could do a thread on book titles
DB has that right– folding in all the deposition testimony and there’s a book.
here’s something missing from the timeline yet: when was SKG announced? There’s some history from that side I haven’t pieced together.
This chronology is superb, and instructive. Can you include when Trent Lott called Judge DeLaughter (or when Dickie Scruggs did so on his behalf), and summary of what was said, when (or if) Trent Lott called Alice Martin, and a summary of what was said, when Trent Lott resigned, and when he was interviewed by FBI agents (and a summary of what was said)?
nmc//11/08/05 according to Southeast Texas Record was the day they signed to start SKG…I’ve gotta run, when I GET BACK I will link.
The 5th Circuit overturned the right of a jury to punish bad faith by a corporation today.Why do we even bother having civil juries when corporations are the defendants?
Dylan wins a Pulitzer prize according to CNN…http://tinyurl.com/5ov6ff …if NMC puts all this stuff together he’s going to win one also. Maybe some people on the Pulitzer prize nominating committee read Folo and got the idea from NMC’s usage of old Dylan tunes….http://tinyurl.com/4vtdg3
SKG was announced in October 2005 if memory serves NMC. The solicitation I received was dated in December 2005.
Researcher I appreciate the sentiment but IMHO Broussard was lost on appeal the day it was won.
My distaste for insurance industry propaganda often found on Mr Rossmiller’s site is well documented. Chip Merlin, however, was at the 5th Circuit when the appeal was argued. His post from December 2007 on the subject was my first stop when the news broke. He nailed this decision months in advance.
Here is the link to Mr Merlin’s blog entry on the subject.
sop
I am not surprised; just disgusted. Burden of proof is not a complicated concept and Judge Senter got it exactly right. The appelate judges were not confused. They were looking for some rational to throw out the verdict and the damages because they are biased idealogues. Of course substantial damage might have been caused by flooding. The point of law and fact is that it was State Farm’s resposibility to prove the exclsion or else pay the claim and State Farm did not attempt to prove it. Insurance law is not rocket science.
NMC,
Scruggs and State Farm first agreed to terms for the 640 or so SKG clients, supposedly in November 2006. Then they worked out a separate framework for a class settlement for coastal State Farm customers who had not yet sued. SF held them both hostage until Hood dropped the criminal case. Hood had his own civil case in Hinds County. The three separate settlements were announced in Jan. 2007. State Farm paid settlements to SKG clients, but slipped out of the other two by partnering with George Dale to reassess claims after Judge Senter rejected the terms of the class settlement. Hood is still pursuing his civil case.
Researcher, where could I find the first three sentences in #21 documented? I’ve heard variants on that.
Concerned, you insult thousands of people when you suppose that anyone upset about insurance practices must have some ulterior motive related to Scruggs. Give us a break. People were cheated on their claims and now again on their premiums. No one needed Scruggs or the Rigsbys to tell them they were being screwed or to inspire them to demand action to fix the problems.
The King of Torts Toots . . . hmm, I dunno, DB, sounds more like me than NMC, but we’ll see.
Helluva chunk of work product he’s sharing here, isn’t it? And making it look easy? If any of the wannabe-Scruggs-authors try to cadge this marvel for their own purposes, we’re here to testify where they got it.
Concerned at 12: Don’t know if the mayor of Ocean Springs, Connie Moran is related to Cori, but you are WAY OFF BASE to speculate that her support for multi-perils insurance is REMOTELY tied to any imagined family relationships! Congressman Taylor has garnered bi-partisan support in congress for this bill. The entire Mississippi Washington delegation supports it, and you’d be hard-pressed to find opposition from any local leaders on the coast, especially not from one of the FEW elected Democrats. Everything that happens down here is not in some sinister way connected to Scruggs!
Researcher@23- My apology as the intent of the question was definitely not to offend any policyholders who have suffered greatly. I too am a concerned coastal resident from FL. I just found the last names certainly interesting since the Mayor is from the same city as a whistleblower from the same area and the news stories seem to be much more prevalent now about the mayor’s involvement than when Katrina problems initially surfaced (seems they are coming out more since Lott’s retirement as Gene Taylor’s articles and comments on the wind were initially commenting about Lott’s support for adding wind to flood coverage).
No intent to diminish pain and suffering anyone dealing with hurricane damage has suffered whatsoever.
Her name is “Birnbaum” not Burnbaum. Get it right.