Here's a copy of the Aiken pretrial order. - Insurance Coverage Blog

eceipt of the first, indeterminate report from Rimkus, or whether USAA CIC had
a right under Mississippi law to investigate the claim.
8. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of any further additional living
expenses other than those already paid by USAA CIC and, if so, the amount.
9. Whether Rimkus and its employee, James Jordan, were independent contractors as
to USAA CIC.
10. Whether USAA CIC is vicariously liable for any alleged bad acts by Rimkus
and/or James Jordan.
11. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to prove their claim that USAA CIC
conspired with Rimkus and James Jordan to contrive engineering reports,
fraudulently or otherwise.
12. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to prove their claim that James Jordan
breached engineering ethics or internal Rimkus policies and procedures.
13. Whether USAA CIC possessed a legitimate and arguable reason for its decision
regarding the Plaintiffs’ claim.
14. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any damages for alleged emotional
distress.
15. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficient, clear and convincing, evidence to prove that
USAA CIC was grossly negligent or acted with malice or actual fraud in handling
Plaintiffs’ claim and making payment decisions on the claim.
16. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to support a verdict for punitive
damages.
-24-