Corban v. USAA: A few (more) words about anti-concurrent causation
It was also good to see that the Mississippi Supreme Court rejected some terms the Fifth Circuit had imported into the analysis, such as “indivisible” and “synergistically,” which are extra-textual. Look, I know what the Fifth Circuit was driving at, and I don’t want to be too hard on them, but these concepts are pretty difficult and even what seems like a minor miscaluation in methodology results in missing the target by a long shot. You hit the thruster on your space ship at the wrong time and instead of coming in for a nice soft touchdown on some salt flats you hit the side of Mt. Everest and go splat.
Enough for now, except I would like to mention two things. First, if you want to know about anti-concurrent cause language and intepretation enter “anti-concurrent” in my blog’s search bar and you’ll find a ton.
Second,I watched the webcast of the oral argument and I thought the lawyers, Judy Guice for the Corbans, and Greg Copeland for USAA, were amazing, really A+ oral advocacy. But also, in the decision I noticed — and I am not making this up — that the court said Attorney General Jim Hood was also granted permission to speak as an amicus. I missed this on the tape, but if true, it’s hard to figure out. What was he there for, a little comedy relief, maybe? I mean, Hood doesn’t know anti-concurrent from antipasto, I’ve seen him talk about it before. Hood thinks when you say “in sequence” that you’re talking about Liberace. What was that he said in that Katrina testimony he gave before Congress? Oh yeah, “It’s the wind, stupid!” Indeed.
Insurance Coverage Blog
7/21/10
Magnolia Tribune
