Insurance Law

Hood discusses meeting with Balducci, Patterson

By David Rossmiller

In this AP story by Holbrook Mohr, does Jim Hood sound like he's about had enough of being Attorney General of Mississippi?

A State Farm attorney suggested during a court hearing earlier this month that Scruggs dispatched Balducci and Patterson with a message for Hood: Scruggs, a political force with deep pockets, would support another candidate for attorney general if Hood charged State Farm with a crime.

Hood scoffed at the notion on Wednesday.

"I didn't care who (Scruggs) supported. I wasn't crazy about being attorney general anyway," Hood said, adding that he preferred being a district attorney.

You know, I watched Hood all through last year and part of the year before, including his Katrina testimony before Congress, and I detected no sign that he was having anything less than the time of his life. So I would suspect this last statement of being some sort of revisionist history -- a person's mind can play tricks on them that way.  But who knows. 

Hood also says in the story the following: 

Attorney General Jim Hood says he would not have met with two men now entangled in a judicial bribery case had he known they allegedly were promised $500,000 to try to influence his investigation of an insurance company's handling of Hurricane Katrina claims.

"If I knew they were getting paid that much, I would have told them to get out of the office because it just didn't smell right," Hood said Wednesday.  

An FBI document made public this week as part of one judicial bribery case alleges embattled plaintiffs attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs paid two associates to persuade Hood not to file criminal charges against State Farm Fire and Casualty Cos. Hood is not a party in the bribery investigation.

I know what he's intending to say, but it sure didn't come out right, did it? "If I knew they were getting paid that much."  I mean, a couple hundred K is all a job like that is worth, max! Right? That's what it sounds like. 

Hood's quote also makes it sound as if the meeting took place in his office.  The questioning on the stand by the State Farm lawyer mentioned above suggested the meeting took place in a restaurant in Jackson. Question: are we talking about the same meeting, or was there more than one? 

Another thing -- in the transcript of the State Farm v. Hood hearing, it's like a game of dodge ball.  Why is Hood now willing to talk about the meeting?

Full post as published by Insurance Coverage Law Blog on February 28, 2008 (boomark / email).