Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary : Mississippi Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Phillip W. Thomas Law Firm : MS Litigation Review & Commentary

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this year I wrote about a Plaintiff verdict in a Hurricane Katrina wind vs. water trial against Lloyd's of London here, here and here.

The plaintiff was allowed to recover attorney's fees in the case because the Court found that Lloyd's had no arguable basis to deny the claim. On December 21 Judge Sul Ozerden awarded the plaintiffs the following extra-contractual damages:

• $1,922,487.25 in attorney's fees
• $234,800.73 in expenses
• $954,245.31 in pre-judgment interest.

The total extra-contractual damages were $3,111,533.29 (plus post-judgment interest).

Here is Judge Ozerden's 40–page opinion on the attorney's fee issue. The Court awarded a rate for Don Barrett of $375 per hour ($475 hr. requested) and David McMullan's of $300 per hour ($345 requested). From my knowledge of hourly rates in Mississippi, both the rates requested and the rates awarded were in the range of reasonableness when compared to premium rates charged by top litigation attorneys in the state.  

Lloyd's took an interesting approach in opposing the requested rates by identifying the rates of its trial attorneys: $285–hr. for Paul Fields from Atlanta and $200–hr. for Whit Johnson from Currie Johnson in Flowood. Lloyd's should be ashamed that it was paying Whit Johnson only $200–hr. Whit is one of the top defense lawyers in the state and could justify a rate double what Lloyd's was paying him.

Judge Ozerden also reduced the compensatory damages award to $1,832,602.20 based on the policy's coinsurance condition and windstorm or hail deductible. Here is that opinion. 

My Take:

Judge Ozerden's opinions were thorough and well-reasoned.

Don't look for Lloyd's to be lobbying for loser-pays legislation when the State Legislature convenes this week.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 A few weeks ago there was a $2 million verdict in a federal court Katrina wind vs. water trial. I last discussed the verdict in this post. Following the verdict the Court ruled that there was no arguable basis for Lloyd's of London to deny the claim, so the plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees and expenses.

Here is plaintiff's motion, which it filed last week. The motion is well written and a good read.

The motion requests the following:

• attorney's fees: $2,312,312
• expenses: $279,338
• interest: $950,389
• Total: $3,512,039.

That's a lot of money. But does anyone want to bet me that the defendant did not have more than $2.6 million in fees and expenses? I bet they did.

Some facts about the scope of the case from the motion:

• pleadings: 400 plus
• depositions: 31
• motions: 68
• summary judgment motions: 4
• pre-trial order: 239 pages.

I look at those stats and see $5–10 million in defense fees and expenses. This is one of those cases where people see the verdict and the motion and think about all the money that the plaintiff's lawyers will make. But the defense lawyers will make as much or more than the plaintiff lawyers while taking no risk. Equally as important, the defense lawyers have been banking their money for years while the plaintiff lawyers have to collect to fill a big hole.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal court jury in Gulfport rendered a plaintiff verdict yesterday in a Katrina wind vs. water trial against Lloyd's of London. Here is the verdict form, which I interpret to mean that the plaintiff recovers just over $2 million.

Judge Sul Ozerden was the trial judge. I will post more on this verdict next week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The AmLaw Litigation Daily has this report on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a $21.6 million jury verdict against an insurance company in a Katrina-related bad faith case. The Court added an extra million for bad faith. The Plaintiff was a New Orleans grocer. The damages appeared to be mainly economic for loss of business income. The Plaintiff's lawyer was Philip Franco of Adams and Reese. It's gotta be the name. The Defendant was United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. The story states:

Franco told us that his first witness was an insurance adjustor who initially reported to United Fire & Casualty that storm damage to the roofs of Robért's grocery stores allowed in rain and wind, destroying merchandise and forcing stores to close for repairs. Franco said the adjustor testified that United Fire & Casualty pressured him to change his report in a way that favored the company and then terminated him after he did.

This goes to show that there are huge verdicts out there with the right case, no matter how conservative the jurisdiction or court. Congratulations to Philip Franco, his litigation team (I'm sure he had a lot of help) and his client. A lot of people impacted by Katrina were pulling for you.