February 8, 2009

Obama Justice Department should take fresh look at homeowner Katrina-fraud cases

The indictment of Gulfport mayor Brent Warr and his wife, Laura, brings widespread attention to questionable criminal prosecutions of Gulf Coast homeowners for allegedly making fraudulent claims for government benefits to repair homes destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The government alleges that the Warrs’ claim was fraudulent because it was not made on their primary residence. The Warrs bought the house in 2004, renovated it, and were in the process of moving in when Katrina hit in 2005.

As reported in the February 8, 2009 edition of the Sun Herald, the outcome could be decided by a determination of which home was the Warrs’ “primary residence.” The problem with having a criminal case decided on this question is that, according to the Sun Herald, there is no accepted definition of “primary residence.” For instance:

Court testimony in a previous case indicates neither MDA nor FEMA regulations define what constitutes a “primary residence.”

Gerald Bordelon, a special agent who investigates Katrina fraud for the State Auditor’s Office, testified in another federal court case about homeowner-grant qualifications.

Bordelon said “primary residence” was a “fluid” term. He added, “It is based on a totality of the circumstances.”

The Warrs have the highest profile of many Coast residents subject to federal prosecution based on the justice department’s questionable interpretation of a fluid term with no set definition. Making matters worse, some people now claim that FEMA and other government agencies encouraged Coast residents to apply for benefits if there was any doubt as to whether they were eligible. DOJ is now taking the opposite approach, however, and prosecuting all close cases.

Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department leadership under President Obama should re-evaluate all homeowner Katrina-fraud cases. In cases such as the Warrs where the question is close, all charges should be dismissed. The department should also concentrate its investigations on fraud claims involving government contractors who fraudulently bilked millions, if not billions, from the government. Doesn’t that make more sense than going after homeowners whose lives were destroyed by Katrina?

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Miss. Supreme Court complicates statute of limitations analysis in vanishing premium cases

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s there was a cottage industry of life insurance sales practice litigation in Mississippi. The cases were commonly referred to as “vanishing premium” cases because most plaintiffs alleged that the selling agent promised that premiums would vanish in a set number of years, but didn’t.

To a large extent the Court’s opinion in Stephens v. Equitable, 850 So. 2d 78 (Miss. 2003) killed vanishing premium litigation in Mississippi. Stephens held that the policy contract was inconsistent with the vanishing premium sales pitch so that the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff bought the policy–usually years before suit was filed. After Stephens, many cases were either dismissed under the statute of limitations or settled cheaply.

On December 11, 2008 the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and retracted from Stephens in Wilbourn v. Equitable. The Court agreed with Judge Chandler’s dissent in the Court of Appeals that argued that Stephens was distinguishable. Judge Chandler observed that the statute of limitations analysis was complex and not susceptible to being decided based on a selective quotation of the policy. The Court agreed and replaced a bright line analysis under Stephens with a murky, fact intensive analysis under Wilbourn.

It remains to be seen whether Wilbourn will revive sales practice litigation in Mississippi. But one thing is certain. Between 2003 and 2008 many cases were dismissed under Stephens that would not have been dismissed under Wilbourn.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn