Tuesday, May 13, 2008
controlabuseofpower.org
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Receive our FREE weekly e-newsletter
Dickie Scruggs


4/7/2008

Scruggs' actions cause disqualification of former business partners


David Nutt
Scruggs
Don Barrett
GULFPORT, Miss. - A federal judge has disqualified the former business partners of famed trial lawyer and admitted judicial briber Richard "Dickie" Scruggs from hundreds of Hurricane Katrina lawsuits against insurance companies.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter made the ruling on Friday in response to motions by State Farm Insurance Cos. and E.A. Renfroe & Co., a claims-handling company that worked with State Farm after the 2005 storm.

Scruggs gave consulting jobs that carried $150,000 salaries to a pair of former Renfroe employees, Kerri Rigsby and Cori Rigsby Moran, the two sisters known for copying thousands of confidential documents and turning them over to Scruggs.

"I have determined that disqualification is required because Scruggs, acting in furtherance of the (Scruggs Katrina Group) joint venture, paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum of money (a consulting fee of $150,000 per year) despite Scruggs' knowledge that the Rigsby sisters were material witnesses in connection with many hurricane damage claims that were likely to become the subject of litigation," Senter wrote in his opinion.

"While Scruggs made the arrangements for these payments, the other members of the SKG joint venture knew or should have known that the payments were being made, and I am of the opinion that their failure to take timely and reasonable remedial steps or to object to this arrangement amounts to a ratification of Scruggs' actions."

Scruggs, his son and law partner Zach and Sidney Backstrom all admitted to roles in offering $50,000 to Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey in a dispute over at least $26.5 million in attorneys fees earned in Katrina settlements. That dispute, brought by former SKG member John Jones, is being presided over by Judge William Coleman now.

Scruggs withdrew his Scruggs Law Firm from the SKG shortly after his November indictment. That left Nutt & McAlister of Ridgeland, Miss., Barrett Law Offices of Lexington, Miss., and Lovelace Law Firm of Destin, Fla. to represent more than 1,100 Mississippi families. They renamed themselves the "Katrina Litigation Group."

The lawsuits allege that the insurance companies misrepresented the amount of damage caused by water (covered by a federal program) and wind (covered by policies).

Kerri Rigsby testified that she only worked about five hours in a 20-day period in Nov. 2006.

"It is apparent to me, from my review of the deposition testimony of the Rigsby sisters, that there was no legitimate reason for these payments and that the 'consulting' work that ostensibly justified these payments was a sham," Senter wrote.

"Even if this were not the case, the performance of legitimate work that is closely related to a matter in litigation cannot justify an attorney's payment of a substantial sum of money to a non-expert material witness."

Renfroe attorney Joseph Walker had argued that Nutt & McAlister should be held accountable for Scruggs' actions because it handled the group's finances. Nutt & McAlister largely funded the group with the agreement it would receive 35 percent of the attorneys fees.

"Even though the payments to the Rigsby sisters originated with Scruggs, the other members of the joint venture were aware or should have been aware that the payments were being made and did nothing to prevent their continued payment," Senter wrote.

"In these circumstances, all of the other members of the original SKG are responsible for this breach of ethics."

Senter also ruled that the Rigsby sisters can not be used as witnesses in any action against State Farm or Renfroe, and any documents they provided can not be used as evidence unless it can be proven that they were obtained through "ordinary methods of discovery."

"State Farm has always been interested in resolving these claims and has willingly participated in mediation, legal settlement negotiations and the (Mississippi Insurance Department) claim re-evaluation program," State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said. "Judge Senter's ruling today changes nothing -- we are still willing to work with our customers to resolve our differences and move forward."

Bay St. Louis firm Hesse and Butterworth was also disqualified from handling Katrina claims. They joined the KLG in December.

Renfroe still has a lawsuit against the Rigsby sisters pending. U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson dismissed criminal contempt charges against Scruggs over the handling of the confidential documents.

Scruggs first made a name for himself in asbestos cases, representing shipyard workers. After that, his work led to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which has an estimated worth of $246 billion for the 52 participating territories and states. Attorneys earned $1.4 billion in the settlement.



Filed Under: Hot Topics

Comments on this article



TWO BASIC TYPES

TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more!

Send us your comments on this article





* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
Write the text from image below to this textbox


Human image test

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format


Related Headlines


Home


LNLBlog.com

State AGs
State Supreme Courts
U.S. Supreme Court

Hot Topics
Asbestos
Big Pharma
Dickie Scruggs
Gasoline prices
Global warming
Hurricane Katrina
Lead paint
Personal injury
Sub-Prime Mortgages
Tobacco
Tort reform
Vioxx
U.S. District Court

Browse By State

Browse By AG

Browse By Date

May '08
April '08
March '08
February '08
January '08
December '07
November '07
October '07
September '07
August '07
July '07
June '07
May '07
April '07
March '07
February '07
January '07
December '06
November '06

LNLBlog.com

  • Session beneficial for Floridians
  • Conway: Ask me anything
  • Commonwealth's work has honored victims of Va. Tech shootings


    Most Popular

  • The business of asbestos: Manhattan Institute releases report
  • Group sues Sears, GE over water filters
  • Dann loses support of key backer
  • Dann's impeachment findings expected
  • Asbestos has long filled W. Va. courtrooms