If I was an adviser to Jim Hood, I would have counseled just letting Judge Acker's blast against the "so-called law enforcement official" go unanswered, or passing it off with a simple "I took the actions necessary to protect the people of Mississippi and protect the integrity of my office (chuckle), the allegations are false," or "he doesn't have his facts straight," or "he's not looking at all the facts and circumstances." The trouble with the latter is, of course, Judge Acker does know all the facts, and is possibly the only person who knows all the facts relating to the Rigsby sisters' illicit taking of State Farm claims files. Nevertheless, there is no sense in calling more attention to what Acker said ab
Related Headlines
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 66 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 69 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 66 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation: More on Fifth Circuit's decision, did the Court hint how it will go on Tuepker?posted 70 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Landry v. Citizens Property: Louisiana Court of Appeals sows confusion, messes up causation analysis in Hurricane Rita cposted 66 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Initial impressions on Fifth Circuit's decision in In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 70 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- California U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusionposted 67 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Commentary on Fifth Circuit's decision in Tuepker v. State Farmposted 56 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguousposted 54 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguous
posted 54 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog