Ellington

As Attorney General Jim Hood predicted yesterday, The Sun Herald is reporting that a State Farm lawsuit against him has been dismissed, allowing the civil investigation of State Farm's actions after Katrina to continue:

State Farm and Attorney General Jim Hood settled their legal dispute in U.S. District Court Thursday morning, ending Hood's criminal investigation of the company. Hood will continue to pursue a civil suit against State Farm, filed in Hinds County Circuit Court, charging the company with breach of its insurance contract. Hood maintains in the lawsuit that State Farm failed to live up to a state court agreement to re-evaluate policyholder claims under the supervision of a federal judge.

On Thursday morning, District Judge David C. Bramlette III dismissed the lawsuit State Farm filed to stop Hood's criminal investigation. Bramlette found that the company had lived up to a letter agreement with Hood that said it would seek federal court approval for policyholder re-evaluations but did not mandate federal supervision.

Previous Comments

ID

98334

Comment

The ongoing case in Hinds County is against a number of insurance companies, where Hood is trying to change decades of legal decisions (in Mississippi and elsewhere) that provide the flood exclusion is valid. Hood filed that lawsuit within weeks of Hurricane Katrina. The settlement Hood reached with State Farm ended both State Farm's lawsuit against Hood for violating a previous settlement agreement (in which State Farm paid Hood $5 million) and Hood's criminal investigations into State Farm. The judge had previously granted and then extended State Farm's injunction against Hood and his criminal investigation. Of concern to many is that this new settlement is confidential. Hood was sued in his capacity as AG. There are exceptions to the Public Records Act for certain legal issues, and the judge's announcement that the settlement is confidential and under seal may be enough to stop any Public Records Act request. Still, don't you want to know what your government agreed to? Newt

Author

Newt

Date

2008-02-08T11:06:00-06:00

ID

98335

Comment

Of course we want to know, Newt. I suspect this is going to be a hard fight, though, to unseal—my experience in various states has been that corporations get too much say when it comes to keeping something sealed that could "hurt their business." That's one of my biggest problem with public-private partnerships; often you lose sunshine because the private company screams about proprietary business matters. And we're living in a state that does not respect sunshine laws. It's one of the worst in the country when it comes to getting police records and such needed to do investigations. (I know this from experience.) And look at how Barbour has been able to hide his records on his holdings. The sun seldom shines in this state. Every battle is worth fighting, including this one. I just hope the people fighting it will fight the same battles when it's not about partisanship and trying to get somebody they don't like. As for the lawsuits against the insurance company, I'm all for trying to crack these exclusions the insurance companies hide behind in order to bilk people who have lost everything. It's not like those companies are in trouble. I personally am thrilled that Hood will put so much on the line politically to go after them. So far, there has no been evidence of wrong-doing on his part, and I hope that remains the case.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T11:14:39-06:00

ID

98336

Comment

As for the lawsuits against the insurance company, I'm all for trying to crack these exclusions the insurance companies hide behind in order to bilk people who have lost everything. I don't mind that an insurance policy has exclusions -- that can be part of the pricing of the insurance bought. What I do think, though, is that a policy should be short and to the point, and in language that the average working person can understand. I think most of the folks on the Coast THOUGHT their policy covered hurricane damage. The wind/water issue should have been clearly packaged and disclosed.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T15:13:01-06:00

ID

98337

Comment

I personally am thrilled that Hood will put so much on the line politically to go after them. So far, there has no been evidence of wrong-doing on his part, and I hope that remains the case. I agree totally. What was wrong about coordinating the criminal investigation with civil suits brought against the same alleged wrongdoer? This all smelled like SF decided "the best defense is an offense." Now, instead of the public talking about whether an insurance company ignored initial reports that homes were destroyed by wind (which would be covered) and ordered new reports to say they were destroyed by water (which wouldn't be), they are talking about Scruggs, Hood, etc, etc.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T15:16:22-06:00

ID

98338

Comment

There are exceptions to the Public Records Act for certain legal issues, and the judge's announcement that the settlement is confidential and under seal may be enough to stop any Public Records Act request. Well, by definition, it's not an "ongoing criminal investigation," so that exception to the Public Records Act wouldn't apply. Also, Uniform Local Rule 83.6(D) of the US District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi says that all parts of a court file should be un-sealed after 30 days, and that any order requiring part of a file to be sealed longer than that "shall set a date for unsealing the court records."

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T15:22:55-06:00

ID

98339

Comment

Now, instead of the public talking about whether an insurance company ignored initial reports that homes were destroyed by wind (which would be covered) and ordered new reports to say they were destroyed by water (which wouldn't be), they are talking about Scruggs, Hood, etc, etc. Agreed. It's been rather remarkable to get (re)acquainted with politics in Mississippi. It is so sad that certain people in power are so willing to take advantage of people's perceived ignorance, and lack of knowledge on an issue, to push certain memes—and how easily they take hold (and benefit the corrupt, whether individual or corporation). One thing that's priceless right now (and rather tragic and stupefying) is watching how easily some people have declared Hood guilty of something-or-the-other due to who has contributed to his campaign. I'm not talking about simply raising the issue for people to consider—but outright declarions that he is corrupt and guilty by association. Beyond being plain dumb to go that far without evidence, it is inanely hypocritical because the same people don't even want you to question people they supported, even if someone corrupt might have put them up and ran their campaign. Then, if you offer any balancing comments to their indictments (and, in some cases, fabrications)—as we're doing here—we are the ones who become the target of their smear campaigns. Politics can get ugly everywhere. But I honestly have never seen anything quite like Mississippi. I think it's the combination of very deep-rooted corruption that goes in layers all the way back through the Dixie Mafia heyday to slavery days (and the hubris-soaked corruption that results), combined with our low education rates and learned contempt for intelligent media, which makes it easy to fool people with illogical memes. And we've had a complicit media for so long that suffers from similar problems: It's not very good so good journalists don't want to stick around, and those who do get neutered into writing drivel in exchange for an easy work week. Now we have a local blabosphere that takes the worst of those problems and turns it into an immediate rumor cycle where nothing is factchecked or put into a balanced context—as long as it satisifies the political itch of angry boyz who own the blogs. And when they're inevitably wrong about something they rushed to judgement on (like Bush, Melton and former DAs who put up their own DAs against DAs who criticized them), they just stop talking about it and hope everyone forgets that they tried the same kind of Swiftboating on the people who questioned their heroes in the first place. And on it goes. I do think that daylight, boatloads of it, will help clean out this cycle. But it's going to take a while. At least it sounds like the feds are coming out at it from various angles—and probably need to prove that they are not politically indebted to one of the most corrupt presidential administrations ever—and will help us lacerate this mess. I mean, if they can take down the Gambino family ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T15:42:38-06:00

ID

98340

Comment

One thing that's priceless right now (and rather tragic and stupefying) is watching how easily some people have declared Hood guilty of something-or-the-other due to who has contributed to his campaign. I'm not talking about simply raising the issue for people to consider—but outright declarions that he is corrupt and guilty by association. Yes. And those same people say nothing about, for example, how Mike Randolph was appointed by Governor Barbour, then wrote the majority opinion in the Senate Election case . . .

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T15:53:05-06:00