Southeast News
Viewing comments for:
Sen. Lott Undecided Whether to Settle or Go to Trial On Katrina Claim
Southeast News March 26, 2007
U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. for refusing to cover Hurricane Katrina's damage to his Gulf Coast home, said last week that he is weighing a settlement ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Putz... | adjusterjoe | Apr 4, 2007, 4:19 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Putz... | Dale | Apr 4, 2007, 12:18 pm |
| To Mary B. | Jewel | Apr 2, 2007, 3:09 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Putz... | adjusterjoe | Apr 2, 2007, 3:00 pm |
| RE: Meow! Typo is Minor Compared to Contracts Written to Def | Mary B. | Apr 2, 2007, 2:26 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Putz... | Mary B. | Apr 2, 2007, 2:24 pm |
| Thank God For Trial Lawyers! | Gerry | Apr 2, 2007, 11:33 am |
| Win & They Appeal: Settle for a Larger sum & Move On | Lady Liberty | Mar 31, 2007, 9:01 pm |
| Meow! Typo is Minor Compared to Contracts Written to Defraud | GOD | Mar 30, 2007, 8:11 pm |
| BTW | adjusterjoe | Mar 30, 2007, 2:22 pm |
| RE: RE: Putz... | adjusterjoe | Mar 30, 2007, 2:19 pm |
| RE: Putz... | Mary B. | Mar 30, 2007, 2:12 pm |
| Let's look at it | adjusterjoe | Mar 30, 2007, 9:17 am |
| What about Homes that still remain but in pieces ? | Homeless without a Slab | Mar 29, 2007, 7:15 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 5:31 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 5:08 pm |
| RE: Not the enthusiasm.... | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 4:28 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | Dale | Mar 29, 2007, 3:56 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 3:55 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | Dale | Mar 29, 2007, 3:38 pm |
| Not the enthusiasm.... | Gill Fin | Mar 29, 2007, 2:53 pm |
| RE: RE: 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 2:14 pm |
| RE: 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | Dale | Mar 29, 2007, 1:58 pm |
| 295,000 settled, 1,000 to go | Gill Fin | Mar 29, 2007, 1:54 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Putz... | Dale | Mar 29, 2007, 1:38 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Putz... | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 1:27 pm |
| RE: Really, its not about the money | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 1:01 pm |
| RE: RE: Putz... | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 12:59 pm |
| RE: RE: Putz... | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 12:53 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the mo | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 12:41 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 12:21 pm |
| RE: Putz... | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 12:00 pm |
| Putz... | Mark | Mar 29, 2007, 11:52 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 5:35 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 5:11 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 5:04 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 5:00 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 4:56 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 3:18 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | dale.gilliland.L932@statefarm. | Mar 28, 2007, 3:15 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 3:13 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 3:12 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 3:10 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 3:07 pm |
| RE: RE: Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 3:03 pm |
| RE: Sorry | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 3:02 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Dale, a question | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 3:01 pm |
| Oh Yeah | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 3:00 pm |
| Sorry | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 2:59 pm |
| RE: RE: Dale, a question | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 2:58 pm |
| RE: Dale, a question | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 2:49 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about th | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 2:45 pm |
| Dale, a question | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 2:41 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the mo | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 2:36 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. | Dale | Mar 28, 2007, 2:26 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. RE | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 1:20 pm |
| lazy, cheap, and stupid | Cliff | Mar 28, 2007, 12:55 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. REALLY | Dale | Mar 27, 2007, 8:30 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. REALLY!!!! | Skit | Mar 26, 2007, 7:44 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. REALLY!!!! | Dale | Mar 26, 2007, 4:02 pm |
| RE: RE: Really, its not about the money. REALLY!!!! | Chuck | Mar 26, 2007, 3:56 pm |
| RE: Really, its not about the money. REALLY!!!! | Dale | Mar 26, 2007, 3:32 pm |
| Really, its not about the money. REALLY!!!! | Gill Fin | Mar 26, 2007, 3:12 pm |
| Hmmm | Sam | Mar 26, 2007, 1:41 pm |
| Back to article | ||


Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Sorry
"Talk about someone trying to justify their position. It has been adjudicated and the ruling went against your position and now your opinion is right and the court's is wrong?"
Yes, my opinion is that Judge Senter is wrong in his understanding of the application of the anti-concurrent causation clause in the adjusting of "slab" losses. What is your interpretation of how the anti-concurrent causation clause applies to "slab" losses?
Am I wrong to believe my opinion is right? Why would I hold on to my opinion, if I thought it was wrong?
"Maybe we should shut down our courts and allow Mark to adjudicate everything."
Shutting down the courts won't be necessary, as I am running for "Supreme Dictator" in '08 (but with a self-imposed, 18 month term). My first edict will be to exile all current officeholders and socialists, and then return this country to the capitalist republic it was intended to be.
"Unfortunately, it is clowns such as you that bring a bad name to our industry."
If you mean "clown" as in approaches life with a sense of humor, thank you; but I hardly see that giving our industry a bad name.
I'm sure you meant "clown", as in a staff adjuster that pays claims based on the policy language; trying to find coverage for the insured, but not afraid to deny a claim when there is no coverage.
Gaining the most job satisfaction by handing a check to an insured to help them recover from their loss, but not afraid of that feeling of remorse when having to tell them that they have lost everything and my company will not be able to help.
"Please provide proof there are over 1000 suits against other carriers, other than State Farm and Nationwide, where they are standing up for denying slab cases in their entirety."
Never said there were, so why do you ask for proof? I guess I could say that if all companies have the same ratio of claims to lawsuits, the company with the largest market saturation will receive the highest number of suits.
"I have handled claims in situations like this over the years and have ALWAYS paid the slab cases their applicable wind damage. Yes, even in Katrina in Mississippi!!"
It must be hard for an independent adjuster to fully deny a claim, when you are paid a percentage of the damage estimate total; No covered damage, no estimate, no money. By the way, I am paid by the hour.
"Again, you need to learn more about the insurance industry if you wish to be a responsible part of it."
I'm rubber, you're glue…
"Tell Dale hello and thanks for bringing in the local State Farm staff adjuster, who has not a clue (that would be you Mark)."
Hello Dale. Sorry adjusterjoe, but I'm not the "local" staff adjuster.
"And why do you not address the problem State Farm has with making bad case law for the insurance industry."
Because 87.2 percent of statistics are made up on the spot, and I would bet your statistic are just as flawed. But then again, you got this information from all these defense attorneys you know and since you can't think for yourself, you go with what they tell you.