What’s not expert about Bossier’s appraisal?
An issue at trial will be the value of Plaintiff’s home at the time of the loss. In this regard, certified and/or licensed appraisers Schroeder and Shaw performed an appraisal report of the subject property as of August 28, 2005, and concluded that the market value of the dwelling and land totaled 831,00.00…
Subtracting the value of the property indicates a replacement cost for the dwelling of $599,835.00. The depreciated replacement cost, or actual cash value, would be $551,848.00. Both amounts exceed the policy limits in this case…
At the time of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bossier’s home was insured under a [State Farm] policy with dwelling limits of $409,452.00. Mr. Bossier did not have flood insurance or any other insurance covering the property at the time of the loss.
Although I’m genuinely perplexed by Bossier’s lack of flood insurance, the issue here is State Farm’s motion to exclude the testimony of Bossier’s two expert witnesses, J. Daniel Schroeder and Tim Shaw. However, in the Plaintiff’s Response, we learn Bossier hired Schroeder and Shaw to appraise his property for tax purposes, not litigation.
Plaintiff’s home located at 1987 Bayside Drive, Biloxi, Mississippi, was rendered a total economic loss from Hurricane Katrina, to the extent that demolition was required. A separate substantial outbuilding on the property was rendered a slab. Plaintiff’s neighbor, Joseph Ziz, witnessed the destruction of the outbuilding by Katrina’s winds prior to the arrival of water.
The entirety of Plaintiff’s loss constitutes a “direct physical loss” covered under the policy. In order to avoid payment of any part of the loss, State Farm has the burden of proving that such part was caused by an excluded peril.
In order to support his claim for policy limits, Plaintiff must only prove that replacement cost of the dwelling exceeded the policy limits.
Both Schroeder’s letter transmitting the appraisal report to Bossier, dated May 16, 2006, and the report are as Exhibits to the Plaintiff’s Response (linked above).
According to the Response, State Farm claims the inclusion of testimony from Schroeder and Shaw violates Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirements regarding expert testimony. Bossier counters claiming the Rule applies only to witnesses retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case…
…and because the witnesses in question were not retained or specially employed to provide testimony in the case, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not apply and the motion should be denied.
In any event, however, the detailed 17 page appraisal report provides more than adequate information concerning the opinions to be expressed by these witnesses and is in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
While I’m not qualified to express an opinion on either position, it is clear that with the appraisal and eyewitness report, State Farm had access to far more information that needed for Bossier’s claim to have ever reached the point of litigation.
And, once again, the question is why Bossier’s claim and others with all-risk policies and property located in the hot spot weren’t paid promptly. Surely, there really is no question that experts conducted Bossier’s appraisal.
In order to substantiate the casualty loss deduction the taxpayer must have market value information including the fair value of the land.
I had one done for the same reason.
sop
sop81_1
August 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hey Nowdy! I’ve been so busy reading “things” under the “Legal” section of SLABBED, that I’ve been “absent” for awhile now – wow!! I’m still reading “things,” but am here long enough to catch up on the latest news and, of course, put my two cents in under SLABBED’S “Freedom of the Press” COMMENT section. There are sites that censor their reader’s comments, but SLABBED is not one of them. I can understand censoring comments for profanity and other justifiable reasons, but not just because the Website Host disagrees (or doesn’t like) what the Comment reveals.
Anyway, turning to your question:
“…the question is why Bossier’s claim and others with all-risk policies and property located in the hot spot weren’t paid promptly…?”
Well, from what I’ve been reading and learning from the “Legal” section of SLABBED, Mr. Bossier’s claim was not PROMPTLY PAID BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE FLOOD INS. Plain and simple.
Indeed, if Mr. Bossier had had Flood Coverage, he stood a 99% chance of State Farm having their “bought and paid for Engineers” entering the claims adj. process and opining that the insured premises had sustained a 100% loss (due to flooding, of course) and his “determined” loss amount (i.e., the Flood limits) would’ve PROMPTLY been paid.
Further, as I’ve discovered in my “reading,” this SPEEDY CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT PROCESS is due to the fact that State Farm is reimbursed 100% by the U.S. Treasury for said Flood losses.
Indeed, Attorney Judy Guice eloquently points this out in Footnote 4 of Plaintiff’s Response to Def’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts’ Appraisal Report/Opinions:
“…difficult to determine what type of proof would
satisfy State Farm if it objects to a date of loss
appraisal. The stringency it requires from the
policyholder stands in stark contrast to the
general and imprecise “Exactotal” formulation
that suffices for payment of flood insurance
proceeds which it will ultimately be reimbursed
from the U.S. Treasury.” See, USA v. State Farm,
1:06-cv-433-LTS-RHW (8/10/09).
Indeed, Mr. Bossier’s “standard of proof” for his
claim is being held to a “higher standard” of proof and
stands in stark contrast to the general and imprecise standards held by State Farm for payment of a Flood claim because, AND ONLY BECAUSE, State Farm knows that once it tenders the Flood limits of a “flood claim” (whether it’s actually a flood claim and/or a flood limits claim) that it will be REIMBURSED by the U.S. TREASURY – i.e., US – THE TAXPAYERS.
Let’s not forget that Mr. Bossier has an eyewitness (Joseph Ziz) that personally WITNESSED the destruction and damage inflicted upon his home, property and land by Hurricane Katrina’s WIND PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF WATER. You can’t buy (or be reimbursed for) that type of irrefutable PROOF, but, apparently, it is not enough for State Farm.
Also, I am stunned to see that State Farm has ALREADY PAID over $26 MILLION DOLLARS to various PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS for their “FEES,” in Katrina claims. $26 MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY’S FEES! PLEASE! It is extremely hard to fathom how such fees are justified – I believe that the # of attys. involved in said fee payment was less than 10 (and even less than that after several – at least two – were convicted of crimes – based upon my readings anyway). Apparently,(among numerous other activities) the subject attorneys tried to “cut out” (i.e., refused to pay) some of the participating attorneys who helped obtain this State Farm settlement resulting in this HUGE $26 MILLION DOLLAR PLUS ATTORNEYS’ FEE(S).
Further, from my observations over the past two decades, when State Farm pays an EXHORBITANT Attorney’s Fee(s) and finally settles a big claim(s), they like to keep the matter(s) “CONFIDENTIAL.” Well, State Farm failed miserably in this regard because it is PUBLIC RECORD due to criminal indictments, Criminal Sentencing transcripts, civil complaints filed regarding this HUGE ATTORNEYS’ FEE (Attys. v. Attys.), publication of “Joint Venture Agreements,” etc., so there’s nothing “CONFIDENTIAL” about this nauseating act and Attorney’s Fee payment by State Farm.
It’s just horrendous to stand by and watch State Farm pay this HUGE ATTORNEY’S FEE, yet fail its POLICYHOLDERS MISERABLY – like Mr. Bossier, like the Kodrins v. State Farm who are now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and countless others. Talk about bad faith.
I’m going back to my reading – it’s akin to a John Grisham novel – except THIS IS REAL LIFE!!!
SHIRLEY HEFLIN
shirley heflin
August 21, 2009 at 12:47 am