Iler family vs The Woodlands (Texas, 2001)
London renters (United Kingdom, 2016)
Case Settled for $7.2 Million
Minium, Robin (Arizona) vs Pillar Communities (2002)
Almost 1,500 Complaints of Mould and Damp in 2014-2015
Oak Ridge Elementary School (North Carolina)
Case settled for $984,000
Pauluk, Dan (Nevada) vs Southern Nevada Health District
News story (Health District mold that killed Dan Pauluk also sickened others)
Romain, Joann Matouk (Michigan)--Woman disappears on 1st day of mold trial (January 17, 2010)
Watkins family vs State Farm (Oklahoma, 2007)
Wisecup family (Iowa) vs State Farm Insurance Company (2002-2009)
There was a lot of corruption and many crimes were committed during this lawsuit. (Learn more about Bad Faith Insurance Companies
and check out our Litigation Tips
.) Details of this case have been provided to the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Attorneys for State Farm:
Initially, State Farm used attorney Henry Harmon from Des Moines, Iowa. Harmon had to withdraw from the lawsuit because he was caught committing an ethics violation during this case.
After Harmon was forced to withdraw, State Farm hired one of their "mad dog attorneys" David V. Jones with the Jones Kurth law firm in San Antonio, Texas
In another case involving David Jones and State Farm, they were disciplined and sanctioned for their misconduct. The Oklahoma Court ruling in that case can be found on the Insurance Bad Faith page of this website. This court ruling occurred in December 2006--just one day after the trial ended in the Wisecup case.
May, 1997: David V. Jones (nickname "Wiretapper") pleads no contest to criminal charges:
“On or about March 7, 1995, in the Southern District of Texas and within the jurisdiction of this court, Defendant, DAVID JONES did intentionally disclose to Theresa Gutierrez, the contents of a wire communication, that is, a non-consensually intercepted and recorded telephone conversation between Mark Rains and Paul Kornfuerer, having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2511(1) (a), all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 2511(1) (c) , 4 (b) (ii).”
The case involved several defendants, numerous law firms and dozens of attorneys, paralegals, etc.
The case also involved nine district court judges in Iowa and several appellate court and supreme court judges. The Iowa Supreme Court didn't even review the case, but they issued a one-sentence ruling. During that same week, the Court announced that their $10 million budget shortfall had (magically) disappeared. In a twist of fate, that Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice was voted out of her position the following year (in 2010).