STATE FARM'S HEAD ON A PLATTER
What Gulf Coast Congressman Gene Taylor wanted the Easter Bunny to bring him.
South Mississippi Living 4/07

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Homeless in Hancock County a Growing Concern Among Katrina Volunteers



From: Kathleen Johnson - Katrina Relief Filed 11/7/07 GCN

(Editor's Note: Kathleen Johnson has been working as a Katrina recovery volunteer in Hancock County since shortly after the hurricane)


Its a bigger issue than most want to admit to. Hancock County is not all about those million dollar homes that used to be on the beach.

There is no homeless shelter (and there was not one before the storm), there is no halfway house for families who lose housing here for a variety of reason, there is no halfway house for young pregnant teens or young pregnant adults, there is no halfway house for those released from prison and transported here on release. Isn't it time we stood up and admitted that this is at crisis proportions?

Here is the picture of a place in Hancock County that is housing up to eight homeless people a night - its a pump house. I took the photograph yesterday as I was out doing a social service work call with someone from the Food Pantry.

We have people still living in tents, in cars, and gutted out homes. Given the magnitude of the problem with the lack of affordable housing - this problem is impacting even our office as we deal more and more with social service work along with recovery issues.

Where do we send these referrals? And a bus ticket out of town, as offered as advice from one source, is not a Christian solution. Most of these people had homes and apartments before the storm and were contributing participants of this community. But so many are falling between the services available.

Kathleen Johnson
Katrina Relief
http://www.reliefvolunteers.com
(228)466-4630 (O)
(228) 344-8616 (C)


© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

The Rapids of Justice Build Slowly in Mississippi

by Ana Maria

With a heavy heart and incredible sadness, I read that Mike “Mini Me” Chaney had become Mississippi’s next George Dale-type of Insurance Commissioner. You know, the kind that is in the pocket of Big Insurance doing its bidding while doling out words that pretend to be for the average American Joe or Jane. I’m stunned.

Having grown up here, perhaps I shouldn’t be so stunned. It’s been a two decades since I left Mississippi to live, work, and being very politically active in Tennessee, California, and the Northern Virginia/DC/Maryland area. I’ve seen how many, many others live, work, play, and vote.

Since mid-2000, I’ve lived primarily in Northern California in the heart, the capitol of Silicon Valley—San Jose, the 10th largest city in the nation. The diverse population had no single dominant ethnicity or race. A third were Caucasian, a third were Latino, and a third were Asian. Women and men of all ancestries ran for and were elected to office. The diversity of the cultural backgrounds made for a rich tapestry of perspectives and solutions to problems every municipality faces.

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. diversity in racial or cultural make up usually means African American and Caucasian. And here in the state of Mississippi, I just have to wonder the extent to which Chaney’s victory was because of his skin color. Goodness knows that it certainly couldn’t because the man had better ideas or experience or vision or passion than my friend Gary Anderson. Though he was part of the Governor’s coat tails which were long and strong.

On election day, I saw for the umteenth time John Grisham’s The Chamber. The movie and book were set at a time when the Klan and racial stratification reigned supreme. The movie—like the book—is set in Mississippi and surrounded the issue of the death penalty for a man found guilty of bombing a law office killing two children whose dad worked on behalf of civil rights. The lawyer was Jewish.

The movie got me to thinking, particularly about this campaign.

On Tuesday, I learned of reports that in Jeff Davis County eight state patrol cars were patrolling the county. Usually, the county has one patrol car—as I understand it. At one point in the day, I received the Anderson Campaign email alert that voter turnout was low. Extra patrol cars, low voter turnout, easy walk for the white guy running against an articulate, polished, educated, experienced, and visionary candidate.

While the superb team and candidate we had in Gary Anderson did not emerge completely victorious this election season, the mere fact that his candidacy was extremely viable is a major testament to how far things have finally come. Not that long ago, the thought of a viable statewide campaign for public office being aggressively and successfully pursued by an African American man here in Mississippi would have been sheer fantasy. Gary Anderson has successfully broken down that barrier, and he did so with enthusiasm, passion, class, and a campaign worthy of our respect for all that it had to overcome to achieve all that is has achieved.

How often each day do we pass through doors that men and women of all backgrounds, religions, economic, religious, and racial backgrounds have broken down so that others of us can benefit from the blood, sweat, and tears we invested. Too often, those of us who break down those doors are not the ones who benefit directly from our efforts. Nevertheless, an eternal debt of gratitude we owe for those who have helped to make the quality of our lives that which it is at present.

So, here, I thank Mr. Gary Anderson for the fortitude, commitment, vision and passion he and his campaign always exhibited throughout the campaign. Gary did this with class, and I am proud to have supported his candidacy, to have become a big fan, and to remain supportive throughout the future.

On an upside electoral note, our fantastic Attorney General Jim Hood strolled back into office, and that is an important victory. With Hood, we have a strong state leader who has proven many times that he is more than up to the task to stand up to Big Insurance. Plus, he has many a powerful legal levers at his disposal. Just as the Anderson campaign gives me hope about the future of Mississippi, having Hood in as the State Attorney General gives me hope that our future may see some interesting legal maneuvering to hold the insurance companies accountable for how they have seem to have deliberately hamstrung us economically.

The debilitating impact on us financially as well as emotionally and economically has been discussed in many articles as of late, a number of which have been copied and posted here on A.M. in the Morning!

While all the traditional issues concerning governance are also of tremendous interest to me, the insanity of the insurance crisis continues to plague us here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and throughout the Katrina-ravaged region from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Bayou Lebatre, Alabama. The insurance crisis has caused an economic redevelopment crisis. That crisis has made housing of any sort scarce as well as all the usual things we expect to find in cities and towns across the nation: grocery stores, movie theaters, bakeries—do you see a pattern? Yes, I’m food-centric, though you may not know it by looking at me. ;)

The lack of businesses being able to rebuild means that men and women have no jobs, which turns into a severe cash flow crunch. These stressors turn dovetail into mental health problems. And, of course, we have a severe shortage of mental health professionals because their homes and places of businesses were also destroyed and unable to be rebuilt because of the insurance crisis. Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and law and order kinds of issues are so overwhelming throughout the region to be rather commonplace. I hear elderly people saying that none of this will be returned to normal in their lifetime—and they may have another 5-10-15 years. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the priorities of the greatest, most powerful nation on the planet.

Throughout this week as various candidates, their campaigns, and their supporters are licking their wounds that the stinging electoral defeat may have caused. Let us remember that there is always another election around the corner. And we have to contend with the results in the meantime. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but how?

The basics are always the place to start be it with the football team, the marching band, or those of us who are even remotely interested in being more successful within the political arena. This includes voters, campaign staff, candidates, and political parties and organizations.

If we were unimpressed with the results then we have the liberty, the responsibility, the authority to lay down now a stronger foundation for the next election. Even in defeat, we can look at the glass as half full and figure out how to begin this minute to improve our own political skills, our verbal jui-jitsu skills to become more politically savvy in the electoral arena, AND the legislative arena.

While having Gary Anderson as our Insurance Commissioner would have clearly been my preference, the real insurance battle, however, must continue to be pushed at the federal level, which is what Congressman Gene Taylor and the U.S. House of Representatives have been doing with passage of the multiple peril legislation this past September—legislation that we can help pass in the Senate. Putting insurance reform on the national radar is what Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have done with their co-sponsorship of the bill to strip the insurance industry of its exemption from the nation’s anti-trust laws. Lott and Landrieu know that the insurance industry should be subjected to the same laws of our nation to which the rest of the financial services industry is subjected.

As far as the implication of the resounding electoral defeat of a perfect candidate for statewide office in the state of Mississippi, a candidate who is African American and who many of us had hoped would be the first African American to be elected to statewide office since Reconstruction? We can choose to look at the glass as half full, that 43% of the voters cast their ballot for this history breaking opportunity. We know that the barriers of race, gender, class are mighty—mightier still here in Mississippi. Not many decades ago, running a viable, statewide campaign as an African American man would have not even have been a thought in most people’s minds.

Though we may be impatient, our energies may seem as a wasted investment or the opportunity may seem forever lost in the final tallying of Tuesday’s vote, we also know that every jagged rock over which mighty rapids flow will eventually wear down into a smooth edge. The rapids of justice build far too slowly for many of us, particularly here in Mississippi. Whether inside and outside of Mississippi, each of us can choose whether we will be a drop of water like a teardrop of sadness.

Or we can choose to jump into the river, joining with other drops of water that over time will smooth out the rough edges of the obstacles before us. These are the drops of water which comprise the mighty rapids of the justice we seek.

© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

STATEMENT OF REP. GENE TAYLOR IN RESPONSE TO 5th CIRCUIT ANTI-CONCURRENT CAUSATION RULING:

This decision reinforces my conviction that Congress needs to enact federal insurance reform. The states and the courts have failed to protect homeowners and taxpayers from fraudulent insurance practices.

The multiple peril insurance provision in H.R. 3121, the House flood insurance reform bill, would offer coastal residents the option to cover both wind and flood risk in one policy. The policy will cover hurricane damage without requiring homeowners to hire lawyers and engineers to divide the wind damage from the flood damage. People who lose everything will not have to endure years of delay only to have a court rule that windstorm insurance does not cover wind damage.

During floor consideration of H.R. 3121, the House passed my amendment to prohibit insurance companies that contract with the flood program from using anti-concurrent causation language to exclude coverage of wind damage simply because there also is some flooding.

I urge coastal residents and businesses to contact Senators and demand that they approve the House provisions to protect policyholders and taxpayers.

State Farm has insisted that its anti-concurrent causation language excluded coverage of all wind damage where there was any flooding, even if the flooding occurred hours later, and with no regard to the severity of the wind damage or the flood damage.

This practice violates State Farm’s contract with the National Flood Insurance Program. State Farm has a fiduciary responsibility to represent federal taxpayers when adjusting a flood claim, and has an obligation to provide a proper adjustment of combined wind and water losses. State Farm said that wind coverage was excluded in thousands of cases, but not once did they prove that all the damage was caused by flooding. In each case, a proper adjustment as required by the NFIP contract would have apportioned the loss between wind damage and flooding.

Every time State Farm invoked the anti-concurrent causation provision, it put its own interests ahead of federal taxpayers and stuck taxpayers with the bill. In some cases, the flood program was billed for wind damage that a fair adjustment would have billed to State Farm. In other cases, federal taxpayers provided home repair grants, FEMA trailers, rental assistance, subsidized loans, and special tax deductions for wind damage that should have been covered by State Farm.

Why would anyone in a hurricane-risk area ever buy another policy from State Farm? When Gulf Coast residents buy insurance, the one thing we are most concerned about is a major hurricane. Thousands of us paid decades of high premiums to State Farm for full windstorm coverage. We also bought federal flood insurance from our State Farm agents, for which the agents receive commissions and the company receives generous payments for its administrative expenses. We bought all the insurance that our good neighbors advised us would provide full hurricane coverage. Now we know that it is impossible to buy State Farm insurance and know that your damage will be covered.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Court backs State Farm in Katrina case

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN


A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld policy language that a major insurer has used to deny hundreds of policyholders' claims on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned a federal judge's ruling that a key clause in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.'s homeowner policies is ambiguous and therefore cannot be enforced.

State Farm says its policies cover damage from a hurricane's wind but not its rising water. The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also says damage from a combination of wind and flood water can be excluded from coverage by "anti-concurrent cause" language in its policies.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. in Gulfport, Miss., had ruled that this clause is ambiguous and can't be enforced, but a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit disagreed.

"State Farm argues that the ACC Clause is not ambiguous because it cannot be construed to have two or more reasonable meanings and it does not conflict with any other provisions in the policy. We agree with State Farm," Judge Will Garwood wrote in a 17-page ruling.

A different three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit already has found that similar language in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. policies is not ambiguous and can be enforced.

The 5th Circuit's ruling Tuesday was for a case filed by John and Claire Tuepker, State Farm policyholders whose home in Long Beach, Miss., was demolished by the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

The court also upheld Senter's ruling in the Tuepkers' case that State Farm policies do not cover damage from storm surge, a hurricane's wind-driven water.

State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company is pleased with the ruling.

"The court's ruling reinforces our confidence in the clarity of the policy language," he said. "While we're pleased the court resolved these issues, State Farm is working to settle remaining outstanding claims (on the Gulf Coast)."

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Humorous PSA from Levees.org

This humorous PSA featuring high school seniors dramatizes how the US Army Corps of Engineers investigated their own work, a clear conflict of interest.

Please view the 64-second video below.

BEST IF VIEWED BY 9pm CST TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6.

If enough people watch the PSA in the first 24 hours, it will earn a place on the homepage of YouTube where it may be viewed by millions!

Want to do more? You can also:

1. Register at YouTube and rate the PSA.

2. View and rate our other PSAs on YouTube.

Help New Orleans and people nationwide. Bring to light that the official levee investigation in New Orleans was controlled by the SAME people who are RESPONSIBLE for the levees design and construction.

www.levees.org


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

State Farm Faces Katrina Trial in La.



By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
© 2007 The Associated Press


NEW ORLEANS — A jury heard opening statements Monday for the first federal trial in Louisiana against State Farm Insurance Cos. for a policyholder's lawsuit over Hurricane Katrina damage.

The eight-member jury will be asked to decide whether Katrina's wind or floodwater was responsible for demolishing the Port Sulphur home of Michael and Judy Kodrin, who sued State Farm for denying their claim after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

"That's going to be the main issue in the case," U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier told a 30-member jury pool.


State Farm, which says its homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not rising water, concluded Katrina's storm surge destroyed the Kodrins' house and denied the couple's claim.

The Kodrins, however, argue that hurricane-force winds destroyed their wood-frame home hours before water overtopped a nearby river levee and flooded their Plaquemines Parish neighborhood.

"When the water filled up like that, the game was already over," John Redmann, an attorney for the Kodrins, said in his opening statement.

State Farm attorney Ryan Acomb said there's an "honest dispute" over the cause of damage to the property. He urged jurors to be guided by evidence and not let sympathy for the homeowners cloud their judgment.

"We don't know of any witnesses to what happened to the home during Hurricane Katrina," Acomb said. "All you can go by is the circumstantial evidence."

The wind-versus-water debate at the center of this case also was the central issue in several federal court cases State Farm already has faced in Mississippi.

In January, a federal jury in Gulfport, Miss., awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for refusing to cover Katrina's storm surge damage to their Biloxi home. A federal judge later reduced the award to $1 million but said State Farm acted in a "grossly negligent way" by denying the policyholder's claim.

This week's trial, which is expected to last several days, isn't the first Katrina insurance case heard in federal court in New Orleans. In April, a jury awarded more than $2.8 million in damages and penalties to a Louisiana man who sued Allstate Insurance Co. over storm damage.

Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm, the nation's largest property insurer, also is Louisiana's largest residential property insurer, writing 32 percent of the policies in the state in 2006.

Louisiana policyholders filed several hundred lawsuits against State Farm after Katrina. Company spokesman Jeff McCollum said four of those cases have been tried in state courts and decided by judges, but the Kodrins' suit is the first to be tried in federal court.

Michael Kodrin, a marina manager before Katrina hit, was expected to testify Monday afternoon. He and his wife moved to Raceland after the storm.

Katrina reduced the Kodrins' home to rubble; only their mailbox and rear steps were left standing. These so-called "slab" cases are among the most contentious of Katrina claims, because experts are left with little physical evidence to help them determine if wind or water caused the damage.

The Kodrins say a State Farm adjuster initially told them that wind apparently caused most of the damage to their home. Later, however, an engineer who inspected the property for the insurer concluded that storm surge destroyed the house.

The Kodrins estimate that Katrina caused a total of $341,745 in damage to their property. State Farm says the market value of the property is only $110,000.

A separate flood insurance policy already has paid the couple $76,000, but they are seeking an additional $207,086 from State Farm for damage to their home, its contents and their living expenses.


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Monday, November 05, 2007

Bush vetoes $23-billion water bill




Congress is expected to override the president next week in a bipartisan vote.
By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush delivered his threatened veto of a $23-billion water bill Friday, but Congress is virtually certain to reverse it in the first override of a Bush veto.

And Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress are moving closer to a federal budget showdown that could result in more vetoes.

The House and Senate are expected to move swiftly next week to override Bush's veto of a bill loaded with water-related projects sought by members of both parties, from shoring up California's levees to protecting the Gulf Coast from hurricanes.



In a statement accompanying his veto, Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, "I am 100% confident that we can override this veto."

The defiant bipartisan response to the veto underscores the difficulty the president faces in his new zeal to hold down federal spending, especially when it affects highly visible construction projects cherished by lawmakers.

"This will be the first veto this Congress has overridden, and it was all about getting parochial water projects back to their home districts," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

The bill would authorize more than 900 projects, such as restoration in the Florida Everglades and the replacement of seven Depression-era locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers that farm groups say is crucial for shipping grain.

For California, the bill authorizes $1.3 billion for 54 projects, including $106 million to strengthen the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees, $25 million for revitalizing the concrete-bound Los Angeles River and $38 million for replenishing sand at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, a project that supporters say would protect coastal residents from storms.

It is the fifth bill that Bush has vetoed -- the fewest by any president since James A. Garfield, who was shot in 1881 after four months in office and died weeks later. Bush has vetoed two bills that would have expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research, a bill to pay for the Iraq war that included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and a bill that would have expanded a children's health insurance program. The four vetoes were sustained.

The Water Resources Development Act passed the House 381-40 and the Senate 81-12, far more than the two-thirds needed to make the measure law over the president's objections. The override would be the first since 1998, when Congress reversed President Clinton's veto of $287 million worth of military construction projects from a spending bill.

"Nothing seems as dear to members of Congress as their water projects," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

Bixby expects that Bush, with support from congressional Republicans, will wield more influence over the appropriations bills. "Bush has a willing and sufficient minority with him to sustain his vetoes -- so long as it isn't a water project," he said.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), leader of a group of House conservatives, said he expected the water-bill veto to be overridden. "I plan to vote to sustain the veto, and I assume it will be a very small group of us," he said. "When the appropriations bills come . . . that's where the real fight on fiscal responsibility will be, and my guess is we'll have enough Republicans to sustain" a veto.

The water bill is supported by a number of Bush's usual allies, including business and farm groups. The measure even brought together Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Olka.), the panel's ranking member, who rarely agree. Inhofe had appealed to Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Budget Director Jim Nussle to urge the president not to veto the bill, and he vowed to lead the fight to override the veto.

"I share the president's concerns on excessive spending," said Republican bill supporter Sen. Mel Martinez. "There are some things in this bill that are not pretty in terms of government spending. But at the end of the day, as a Floridian, Everglades restoration is such an integral part of this WRDA bill we have to take the good with the bad."

Democrats pounced on the veto to portray Bush as out of touch with domestic priorities.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Next week, the House is expected to take up the first of a string of spending bills that could face Bush vetoes: a $215-billion bill that combines Democratic-sought funding increases for health and education programs with spending for popular veterans programs.

Although the fiscal year began Oct. 1, Congress has yet to send Bush a spending bill.

Bush, signaling a new determination to erase the red ink in the budget, has complained that Congress added $22 billion to his budget and seemed addicted to earmarks. In the first six years of his administration, federal spending soared. Bush never vetoed a GOP-written spending bill. His administration inherited a budget surplus and has presided over six years of deficits, including a record $412.7 billion in fiscal 2004.

On Friday in his veto statement, Bush noted that the House originally approved a $15-billion water bill and the Senate approved a $14-billion measure, but instead of the customary splitting the difference during negotiations, they "emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion."

"This is not fiscally responsible," he said.

The water bill authorizes projects, but the funds must be provided through the separate appropriations process.

Bush complained that some of the projects fall outside the main mission of the Army Corps of Engineers: "facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems."

richard.simon@latimes.com


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Landmark Katrina Lawsuit Against State Farm Begins

Monday, 05 Nov 2007, 10:16 AM CST
Originally published here.

NEW ORLEANS (WHBQ FOX13 myfoxmemphis.com) – -- A federal jury will hear testimony today as a Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana couple argues that State Farm improperly denied their homeowners insurance claim on their house, which vanished in Hurricane Katrina.

Judy and Michael Kodrin say their Port Sulphur home was damaged by Katrina's winds long before the storm surge arrived. The Kodrins claim they are owed money under their homeowners policy as well as the money they received through their National Flood Insurance Program policy.

State Farm says the house was completely destroyed by storm surge, and no homeowners money is owed. Flooding is excluded on homeowners policies.

The case will be a test of State Farm's anti-concurrent causation clause, which the company has used to deny payment for wind damage on a home when it occurs in concert with flood damage.

These controversial clauses have been the focal point of litigation in Mississippi, but State Farm insurance contracts in Louisiana are worded slightly differently.

According to Judge Carl Barbier's pretrial order, the Kodrins' roof was found 1,000 yards away and all that remained of their 177 Holiday Drive home was the rear steps and the mailbox.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Katrina's Election Day Revenge: Anderson, Hood, Sumrall

by Ana Maria

Just over two years ago, the lives of millions of people living inside the Katrina-ravaged region changed overnight. Homes, places of worship, schools, communities destroyed. Lives devastated as never before. Within weeks, Big Insurance came around delivering its disgusting decision not to pay for the wind related damage on the property. Not on U.S. Senator Lott’s home in Pascagoula located on the eastern end of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Not on the U.S. Congressman Gene Taylor’s home located on the western end of the same Gulf Coast. Big Insurance dolled out the same irresponsible treatment to a federal judge living somewhere along the Gulf Coast as well as to anyone who was not an eyewitness to the storm, which entailed nearly everyone.

Deeply inside of Big Insurance’s pocket, Mississippi’s Insurance Commissioner George Dale sided with the industry voters here had thought he was to regulate on behalf of home and business owners. Dale shrugged off the criticism shaking his proverbial finger with warnings that Big Insurance would leave the state were it not for his wise decisions allowing them to have their way with us. Of course, Big Insurance has had its way with American families and businesses all over this nation of ours.

A few months ago, Bloomberg News published Home Insurers' Secret Tactics Cheat Fire Victims, Hike Profits, a riveting and insightful article that disclosed the industry’s dirty, unknown secrets.

''Fighting an insurance company is like staring down the wrong end of a cannon,'' Dr. Bennett said after fighting his insurance company. The New Hampshire physician lost his five-bedroom home in a 1993 fire filled with antiques and fine art. Replacement costs? $20 million. The insurance company offered $1.7 million. Not quite 20% of the policy’s worth.
Here in the Katrina-ravaged region, the insurance industry again used and continues to use its low ball, starve-the-policyholder tactic.

Thankfully, Katrina’s revenge began at the election box two months ago. Voters in Mississippi’s Democratic primary election booted out ol’ George because of his cozy relationship with Big Insurance. Voters replaced him with Gary Anderson, a man a great integrity. Anderson’s independence from Big Insurance has been a major foundation of his campaign. He went so far as to publicly declare that he would not take a dime from Big Insurance, and Anderson has kept his word.

The Republican candidate, Mike Chaney, also made that pledge, but has repeated betrayed his word. The latest figure has been more than $70,000 worth of betrayal. Rather than emulating Gary Anderson, who is a man of great integrity, Chaney has emulated George Dale, a man who did Big Insurance’s dirty work and betrayed the tens of thousands of South Mississippi families and businesses—voters who remembered in the Democratic primary. Mike “Mini Me” Chaney is the bait and switch candidate in this race for an insurance commissioner who will be true and faithful to all of Mississippi’s families and businesses.

Here on the Gulf Coast, we are all still suffering greatly from the housing shortage and the lack of basic necessities like grocery stores, bakeries, jails, and other things that are par for the course in communities all over Mississippi and the rest of the nation. Why? Insurance companies didn’t pay on the wind-related damages of the policies be it for a home or a business. Without the money to rebuild, folks are hard pressed to find the money to self-finance. Even if there is money to rebuild based on savings or other assets, affording the astronomical increase in insurance premiums is more than most of us can swallow. The same goes for developers, as well.

At his Town Hall Meeting on Insurance Reform that Congressman Gene Taylor held last August, Taylor told us that developers are telling him that to build an apartment complex requires $300 per unit for insurance alone. Let me give you an example of what that means. A childhood friend told me that before Katrina, her mother lived in an apartment and paid $500 a month. Her rent went up to $900 a month after Katrina. Who in their right mind has in their budget an 80% increase in housing? Imagine a similar percentage increase for a mortgage. Everyone’s insurance costs have increased and those costs are ultimately born by us, the consumers of housing, etc.

The difference between the two candidates in tomorrow’s election here in Mississippi is the difference as voters had in the primary. Gary Anderson is independent and deliberately siding with home and business owners. Mike “Mini Me” Chaney is in the pocket of Big Insurance so much so that when asked if he intended to live up to his pledge not to take money from Big Insurance, Mini Me snidely retorted “When pigs fly.”

No state in the nation deserves such an arrogant man in the office of insurance commissioner, a man who demonstrates such contempt for keeping his word, such disrespect for the very people to whom he had made his pledge not to take Big Insurance money, such contempt for those of us who must live under the rules and regulations—or lack thereof—that the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner promulgates.

Personally, I’m voting the Democratic ticket straight down the line. It’s easy, particularly with Gary Anderson as one of the statewide candidates. Anderson has stated he intends to open an office here on the Gulf Coast to help us resolve our many outstanding issues with Big Insurance. Throughout the campaign, Anderson has kept his word. He has proposed transforming the insurance commissioner office into one that is truly the public servant of the people of Mississippi, one that looks out for our interest from an industry that has demonstrated over and over again that its greedy-gutted CEOs can be trusted as far as we can throw them. Anderson is the man for the job. He has my vote and I hope he has yours as well.

Additionally, I’ll be voting for Jim Hood to remain as our Attorney General. He has done a wonderful job of looking out for us in many arenas, most especially against Big Insurance. I’ll also be voting for Mike Sumrall for State Auditor. He is the only candidate that has ever conducted a government audit, complete with full knowledge of GAGAS, Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, also known as the Yellow Book in trade lingo. Sumrall has 23 years auditing experience with the office of state auditor. You see, as a former legislative auditor for the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, I know the difference between a cross foot and a foot, a performance audit from a performing monkey, what looks like the potential for fraud and abuse, what constitutes an audit trail. So does Mike Sumrall. He is the only one in the race that has real, honest-to-GAWD auditing experience. Given the potential for fraud and abuse in the billions of federal dollars for Katrina recovery, I want someone looking at those expenditures who knows what they are doing. Mike does.

Same for the other offices. I want an Attorney General who knows the law and how to protect us from those like Big Insurance who may, just may engage in criminal behavior or break a contract just to pad its profits and to do so while costing us, the taxpayers, or us the policyholders, or both.

I want an insurance commissioner who knows that there is an inherent risk in the insurance business. Those of us who pay insurance risk our money in anticipation that we may need to cash in our policy should disaster strike. Our risk is that we’re handing over our money, and we never have reason to file a claim. That is our risk. Big Insurance has a risk that it collects premiums and one day will have to make good on a claim. That is its risk.

After Katrina, Big Insurance decided to engage in the big rip off and ran a scam to deprive policyholders of the ability to collect on the wind damages that wind policies covered. In Mississippi, George Dale enabled Big Insurance’s Big Rip Off. We threw Dale out of office for this behavior. Mike “Mini Me” Chaney is the George Dale candidate in tomorrow’s race for insurance commissioner. Like Dale, Mini Me has tried to scare voters with talk that the big rip off insurance companies will leave the state unless he is elected. Let ‘em leave, Mini Me. We can’t afford lying, cheating, conniving, betraying insurance companies. That goes double for any one who would be their willing enabler.

Voting for Gary Anderson is the prudent vote to cast in tomorrow’s election. I believe Gary Anderson is genuine. I know that he is qualified. I’m convinced that a beautiful new day will dawn in Mississippi with Gary Anderson as our Insurance Commissioner. Let’s get out and vote in droves for that beautiful day!


© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Oxford lawyer Scruggs funds ad against GOP insurance commissioner hopeful

  • GOP candidate for insurance post claims he's avoiding fight



  • Scruggs
    File Photo/The Clarion-Ledger

    By LEAH RUPP
    Originally published November 4, 2007


    Oxford lawyer Dickie Scruggs is funding a new attack ad on Republican insurance commissioner hopeful Mike Chaney.

    Chaney has been accused by Democratic opponent Gary Anderson of cozying up to insurance companies, and the new ad reiterates that.

    But Chaney said he's independent and is steering clear of a fight with Scruggs.

    Anderson, a former state chief fiscal officer, said he's not involved with the ad.

    It's unclear how Scruggs' involvement could affect the outcome of the race between Chaney and Anderson on Tuesday, but some attribute the attorney with helping bring down George Dale, the longest- serving insurance commissioner in the nation.

    "I am concerned that we are going from bad to worse with Mike Chaney," Scruggs said. "He's going to be insurance-friendly, at least to the extent George Dale was."

    At the end of July, Scruggs announced he was contributing $250,000 to Mississippians for Fair Elections, a PAC "created to raise awareness about the role the insurance commissioner plays."

    One reason he and Dale were at odds was because Scruggs' law firm represented hundreds of property owners who sued insurers over unpaid claims after Hurricane Katrina while Dale sponsored a program to allow victims to resolve claims without seeking litigation.

    Dale lost to Anderson in the August primary.

    "After that, I would have just let this thing run its course," Scruggs said last week. "But then (Chaney) attacked me personally."

    In a letter sent by Chaney's campaign, the state senator calls Scruggs a "greedy" personal injury lawyer who has "made millions and millions of dollars by suing Mississippi businesses."

    In an interview with The Clarion-Ledger, Chaney said the letter was a "wrong draft" and that he talked to Scruggs about the mistake after it was sent out.

    "He wants to make this personal; I don't," Chaney said. "He told me he was staying out of this race and that's obviously not the case."

    Scruggs said the new ad was being funded through the PAC.

    But Chaney and others have charged Scruggs may be contributing to Anderson's campaign more directly as well.

    "A man that worked for the state of Mississippi doesn't have that type of money," said Chaney, referring to a $200,000 loan Anderson reported giving himself in the Oct. 30 campaign finance reports.

    "Do I think Dickie Scruggs is financing his campaign? Sure, I do."

    But Anderson, asked repeatedly whether the loan came from Scruggs or the PAC, said the money was from his "personal assets."

    "I don't have anything to do (with the ad)," he said. "This is their issue, not my issue."

    Anderson said his career in the public and private sectors has enabled him to make good investments and that "those investments have paid off for me."

    Still, Anderson said Chaney should be criticized for taking money from those associated with insurance industry.

    "I believe the voters will say the insurance commissioner is not for sale," he said. "I have had to fund my campaign myself because I'm not taking money from insurance companies."

    Chaney has acknowledged he was taking donations from insurance agents but not from large companies.

    "(Agents) are my neighbors, my friends," he said. "They're the first people I call when I have a claim, and I'm not going to shut them out in an election that is this important."

    It's unclear whether negative advertising can affect the way someone votes, said Allan McBride, professor of political science at the University of Southern Mississippi.

    "One is that they provide information," he said. "They lay out what the person may have done wrong. There is a sense that a lot of voters might appreciate that."

    On the other hand, some research shows tarring the other candidate doesn't matter at all, McBride said.<>

    Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

    Read More......