Topic: Catastrophe Claims

On September 12, 2007, Judge L.T. Senter, Jr., sitting in the federal district court in Mississippi, denied a motion filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to disqualify Richard (“Dickie”) Scruggs, his law firm, and other attorneys and firms in the Scruggs Katrina Group from representing plaintiffs in the case of McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 

On September 28, 2007, a jury in an action venued in the United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, found that certain damage to the home of Kevin and Sherrye Webster was caused by wind, wind-blown debris and/or wind-driven rain, which were all covered perils under the Websters’ homeowners’ policy. 

Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. of the United States district court of Lousisa federal district court sitting in Louisiana recently held that two homeowners could jointly file an amended complaint and proceed with their proposed class action lawsuit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and software company Xactware. 

A medical clinic located in New Orleans, Spine Care East, LLC, filed suit in a federal district court in Louisiana on August 24, against its insurer, Hanover Insurance Company.  In the Complaint (click here to review the Complaint), Spine Care alleges that Hanover acted in bad faith by failing to properly compensate Spine Care for its business interruption losses sustained in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

August 29 was the last day that Louisiana residents could file lawsuits against their insurers alleging that their insurers did not properly adjust, or pay, their Hurricane-Katrina related claims.  Louisiana had previously extended the time in which parties had to file lawsuits arising out of Katrina-related damage, on property claims from one to two years. 

As discussed here, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral argument on the appeal in the Katrina case of Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.  Last week, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the August 2006 holding of the district court, and held that most of the damage to the Leonards’ property was not the result of covered wind damage, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed with much of the district court’s rationale.