A Gulf Coast resident is appealing to the State Supreme Court to have access to records showing the total dollar amount denied by insurance companies to post-Katrina policy holders.
“We just think people have the right to know this information,” said Bay St. Louis attorney Edward Gibson, who has agreed to handle the appeal. “Mr. Buckel is a concerned citizen who is bearing the responsibility to try to get this information out there.”
Buckel is trying to find out the amount of Katrina claims denied to bolster his push for the state Legislature to pass a Policyholders Bill of Rights. The legislation has died in committee for the past three years. Bills are expected to be introduced again in 2010.
Read complete story at Appeal would reveal claims denied – Featured Story – SunHerald.com.
Read More
The MS Supreme Court gave Katrina victims a little hope with their recent ruling on wind vs. water damage:
The court decided, first, that “concurrent” means happening at the same time, so for the effects of water concurrent with any other cause to be excluded, they must have been simultaneous. This means that if wind came in just before tidal force, the damage from the wind is not excluded as concurrent. As more-or-less a corollary, the court decided that a loss occurs at the moment it, um, occurs. This means that wind damage is a loss and later damage from another excluded cause does not make it any less so. Second, the court decided that the insured has the initial burden to prove there has been a loss, and then the insurer has the burden to prove that the loss is subject to an exclusion from coverage. Thus, the insured shows his or her house is damages, and then the insurer must parse the difference between wind and water damage (which, I’ll add editorially, will likely be an issue for a jury to decide).
via NMissCommentor » The Corbans win on wind and water in the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Read More
The Mississippi Supreme Court has offered further revisions to the Electronic Courts project by outlining a new round of sealed files:
Under MEC, there are four types of “special” items. Sealed files, sealed documents, documents submitted for in camera review, and restricted access files. A sealed file may not be viewed at all on MEC. All searches for a sealed file fail to produce any results whatsoever. Only court personnel can even see that the case exists. (Think the Pickering divorce case.) Sealed documents and documents submitted for in camera review will be reflected with a docket entry that says either “sealed document” or “document submitted for in camera review,” but, like sealed files, the documents themselves will only be viewable by court personnel. (Think Chip Pickering’s diary in the attendant alienation of affection suit.) Restricted access files show up in search results, but the internet MEC user may only view the docket, not the pleadings themselves. (Think your divorce or your neighbor’s.) In order to view the pleadings, a member of the public can go to a public terminal at the courthouse.
Click the link below to see exactly what kind of files will be redacted and why.
(Via Ipse Blogit: The Mississippi Supreme Court revises the Mississippi Electronic Courts Administrative Procedures)
Read More
