Scruggs Katrina Group weighs in about State Farm deal with Commissioner Dale, Senter’s rejection of Guice class action

You may not be aware that the Scruggs Katrina Group has its own blog, which is a pretty decent site, but could have been much more of a nexus for Katrina news and opinion if they had hired a full-time blogger.  Maybe Dickie Scruggs could have scrimped a little on the $150,000 consulting contracts to the ‘whistleblower’ Rigsby sisters and hired one.  In any event, I found two recent posts by Zach Scruggs interesting: one was about Senter’s rejection of the Guice class action and another about State Farm’s cooperation with Commissioner Dale in reopening thousands of claims.  

As a matter of blogger protocol, I also say thanks to the Scruggs Group for including me on their blogroll. 

2 Comments

Filed under First Party Insurance

2 Responses to Scruggs Katrina Group weighs in about State Farm deal with Commissioner Dale, Senter’s rejection of Guice class action

  1. Layne

    I’m a little confused. I’m hoping you can illuminate something for me.
    Judge Senter rejected the proposed settlement, in large part it appears, due to the requirement of binding mediation being forced upon the class when this provision wasn’t found in their policies.
    After State Farm agreed to implement a similar settlement without binding mediation, and which allows still for later law-suits, Scruggs group is upset that this “has no teeth” because it does NOT include binding mediation.
    Both Senter and the Scruggs group are presumably operating in the best interest of these folks, but are apparently 180 degrees apart on the issued of binding vs. non-binding mediation.

  2. The way Scruggs is saying it, he means there is no outside force at all reviewing the coverage determination, it is merely casting the policyholder back into the same claims process. With the class action settlement, there would have been a process of sorts of review followed by a two-hour binding arbitration.
    That process in the class action settlement doesn’t sound like a great recipe for procedural fairness. I understand Senter’s concern. The “teeth” Scruggs talks about must be baby little duck teeth, because as I understand it there was no appeal from the arbtitrations and the time-limit made them look like some kind of impromptu show trial.