December 4, 2021

News

News Network

Just the Facts: Insurance Case Filings Spike After Natural Disasters

12 min read
<div>In the U.S. district courts, filings of civil cases involving insurance typically have surged following weather catastrophes. Over the past 20 years, devastating hurricanes and severe floods have resulted in the Eastern District of Louisiana processing the most insurance cases of any district court.</div>

Main content

Just the Facts is a feature that highlights issues and trends in the Judiciary based on data collected by the Judiciary Data and Analysis Office (JDAO) of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Comments, questions, and suggestions can be sent to JDAO.

In the U.S. district courts, filings of civil cases involving insurance typically have surged following weather catastrophes. Over the past 20 years, devastating hurricanes and severe floods have resulted in the Eastern District of Louisiana processing the most insurance cases of any district court. Spikes in filings following weather-related disasters also have occurred in other states, including New York and New Jersey after Superstorm Sandy, and Texas and Louisiana after Hurricane Harvey.

Background

Civil cases addressing insurance are actions alleging breaches of insurance contracts.1 These cases involve disputes related to car insurance, life insurance, or less common types of insurance, such as flood insurance. Following weather catastrophes, U.S. district courts often help resolve disputes involving insurance claims. Map 1 displays insurance filings by judicial district between fiscal year (FY) 2000 and FY 2020. 

Facts and Figures

  • Over the past two decades, annual insurance case filings have ranged from 7,459 to 13,496 filings annually, as indicated in Figure 1 below. Between FY 20002 and FY 2020, the highest numbers of insurance cases were filed in FY 2007 and FY 2008. In each of those years, the Eastern District of Louisiana reported more insurance case filings than any other district court, with totals of 5,438 filings in FY 2007 and 4,708 filings in FY 2008. In Figure 2 below, the circuit and district heat maps display monthly and annual insurance filings for each U.S. district court. 
  • Some insurance filings involve flood insurance, a type of insurance managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established following the enactment of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA; 42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq.). The NFIP makes flood insurance policies available to property owners in high-risk areas, often through government-approved private insurers. The NFIP also maintains flood hazard zone maps and adopts standards for floodplain management to reduce flooding in high-risk areas.3 A flood insurance claim can be appealed within one year of an initial denial and must be filed in the district where the damages occurred (42 U.S.C. § 4072, 44 C.F.R. § 62.22).  
  • Figure 3 displays NFIP claims filed from FY 2000 to FY 2020. During this period, more than 100,000 claims were submitted in each of three years: FY 2005, FY 2013, and FY 2017. The large numbers of claims filed during these years stemmed primarily from the effects of Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and Hurricane Harvey, respectively.
  • Weather disasters vary with regard to the magnitude and duration of their impacts on civil caseloads in the federal courts. Some events, such as Hurricane Katrina, can create large spikes in filings years after the disasters occur. Other disasters may have less significant impacts on the courts due to regional differences in insurance laws and coverage.4 Local laws may affect how insurance cases move through the courts.5 Following weather disasters, legislation may be passed to provide additional relief to people who suffered damage from the disaster, leading to spikes in filings long after the weather events end.6
  • In FY 2005, 251,618 NFIP claims were submitted (see Figure 3 below), primarily as a result of losses associated with Hurricane Katrina.7 In the next three years, the Eastern District of Louisiana received more insurance cases than any other district court, with filings totaling 1,885 in FY 2006, 5,438 in FY 2007, and 4,708 in FY 2008 (see Figure 2 below).
  • In FY 2013, 168,850 NFIP claims were filed (see Figure 3 below), largely as a result of Superstorm Sandy.8 In FY 2014, the district courts with the highest numbers of insurance cases were the District of New Jersey with 1,442 filings and the Eastern District of New York with 1,295 filings. The District of New Jersey also received the most insurance cases of any district court in FY 2015, with 693 filings. 
  • In FY 2017, 168,842 NFIP claims were filed (see Figure 2 below), largely as a result of the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma throughout the southern and eastern United States. In FY 2018, the Middle District of Louisiana processed 1,184 filings,9 the Southern District of Florida had 794 filings, and the Southern District of Texas received 691 filings (see Figure 3 below). In FY 2019, the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of Florida had the most insurance case filings of all districts, with 1,131 and 1,012 filings, respectively.   

Note: Click on the tabs below to view the figures and map.


1 Here an insurance case is an action alleging a breach of an insurance contract, tort claim, or other cause related to an insurance contract, except for a maritime insurance contract.

2 In the Judiciary, the fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 – Sept. 30. All data sources in this document use this fiscal year calendar for reporting.

3 For more information on flood insurance, visit the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance website: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance. Retrieved March 11, 2021. For information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the following Congressional Research Service report: U.S. Congressional Research Service. Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (Jan. 5, 2021), by Diane P. Horn and Baird Webel. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44593. Retrieved March 11, 2021. For more details on federal disaster assistance, see U.S. Congressional Research Service. Federal Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Available to Individuals and Households After a Flood (July 31, 2018), by Diane P. Horn. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44808. Retrieved March 11, 2021.

4 Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands in Sept. 2017, has not to date caused a spike in insurance case filings in the District of Puerto Rico.

5 Following Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, legislation addressing disaster relief was passed by state and federal governments. For more information on The Post Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, and the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, see the following report from the Congressional Research Service: U.S. Congressional Research Service. The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues (Nov. 13, 2020), by William L. Painter. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45484/25. Retrieved March 11, 2021.

6 The “Road Home” litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana resulted in a large increase in insurance cases in 2013, eight years after the Hurricane Katrina occurred.

7 iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-flood-insurance#National%20Flood%20Insurance%20Program,%201980-2018%20(1). Retrieved March 11, 2021.

8 iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-flood-insurance#National%20Flood%20Insurance%20Program,%201980-2018%20(1). Retrieved March 11, 2021.

9 The spike in filings in the Middle District of Louisiana during FY 2018 was related to catastrophic flooding that occurred in the state during Aug. 2016. 

Related Topics: Statistics

More from: info@uscourts.gov
More from Area Control Network
1. Global Warming Network
2. Christians Online
3. Put your website in the archives
4. Area Control Network News

News Network

  • Freedom of Information Act: Actions Needed to Improve Agency Compliance with Proactive Disclosure Requirements
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 expanded the requirement for agencies to proactively disclose certain records—making the records publicly available without waiting for specific requests. Of the three agencies GAO reviewed—Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—only VHA aligned its policies and procedures with applicable Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proactive disclosure requirements. Although FAA officials stated that the agency has processes to identify and post proactive disclosures, it has not documented these processes. HUD has FOIA regulations, updated in 2017, that address proactive disclosure, but its standard operating procedures have outdated sections that do not reflect statutory requirements. GAO also found that HUD, VHA, and FAA did not fully comply with the statutory reporting requirements and Department of Justice's (DOJ) guidance to accurately report proactive disclosures. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires agencies to report the number of records the FOIA and program offices proactively disclosed each fiscal year. From fiscal years 2017 through 2019, HUD incorrectly reported zero proactive disclosures, while VHA and FAA did not track and report all required categories of proactive disclosures in fiscal year 2019 (see table). Selected Agencies' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Offices' Reported Proactive Disclosures Fiscal year Federal Aviation Administration Housing and Urban Development Veterans Health Administration 2019 8 0 16 2018 89,687 0 0 2017 90,486 0 58 2016 68,046 12 0 Source: FOIA.gov. | GAO-21-254 DOJ's Office of Information Policy (OIP) is responsible for encouraging agencies' compliance with FOIA, including overseeing the Annual FOIA Report that agencies submit to OIP. OIP told GAO that it asked agencies that report zero proactive disclosures to confirm that this was accurate, but it did not follow up with these agencies. For example, OIP asked HUD officials to confirm that HUD intentionally reported zero proactive disclosures, but did not ask why HUD had zero proactive disclosures. In addition, GAO's review of annual FOIA data found that 25 of 118 agencies reported zero proactive disclosures in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. OIP said that agencies with a low volume of requests may have fewer records to proactively disclose. However, by not following up with agencies that report zero proactive disclosures, OIP is not using an available tool that may strengthen its efforts to encourage agencies to make required disclosures. OIP and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) officials stated that making proactive disclosures accessible is a challenge for agencies. To assist agencies in addressing such challenges, OGIS periodically reviews agencies' compliance with FOIA and recently issued a report that included strategies for making proactive disclosures accessible. Why GAO Did This Study FOIA, enacted into law more than 50 years ago, requires federal agencies to provide the public with access to government records and information, including through proactive disclosures. FOIA proactive disclosures enhance transparency by ensuring that certain information about the operations and activities of the government is publicly available. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' efforts to implement FOIA requirements regarding proactive disclosures. This report assesses the extent to which selected agencies (1) aligned their policies and procedures with FOIA requirements, and (2) tracked and reported these disclosures. GAO also assessed the effectiveness of the tools, resources, and oversight provided by DOJ and NARA to address known challenges to agencies' FOIA compliance. GAO selected three agencies—FAA, HUD, and VHA—that reflect, among other things, a range in the agency-reported number of FOIA requests received and records proactively disclosed. GAO reviewed DOJ, NARA, FAA, HUD, and VHA documents and interviewed agency officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Alabama Man Pleads Guilty to Firearms Offenses
    In Crime News
    Lonnie Leroy Coffman, 71, of Falkville, Alabama, pleaded guilty today to federal and local firearms offenses stemming from the discovery of weapons in his pickup truck parked near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
    [Read More…]
  • Application and Case Processing
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Bureau of Population, [Read More…]
  • Defense Critical Infrastructure: Actions Needed to Improve the Consistency, Reliability, and Usefulness of DOD’s Tier 1 Task Critical Asset List
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on a global network of defense critical infrastructure so essential that the incapacitation, exploitation, or destruction of an asset within this network could severely affect DOD's ability to deploy, support, and sustain its forces and operations worldwide and to implement its core missions, including current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of its importance to DOD operations, this defense critical infrastructure could be vulnerable to attacks by adversaries, and vulnerable to natural disasters and hazards, such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Since September 2003, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs (ASD[HD&ASA]) has been responsible for developing and ensuring implementation of critical infrastructure protection policy and program guidance. To identify and help assure the availability of this mission-critical infrastructure, in August 2005 DOD established the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP), assigning overall responsibility for the program to ASD(HD&ASA). In April 2008, DOD issued an instruction that further assigned responsibilities and prescribed procedures for the implementation of DCIP, among other things. In October 2008, DOD formalized the process for identifying and prioritizing its critical infrastructure. Since 2006, ASD(HD&ASA) has collaborated with the Joint Staff to compile a list of all DOD- and non-DOD-owned infrastructure essential to accomplish DOD's missions. To support this effort, the combatant commands and military services are to identify and place their critical assets into prioritized tiers, including Tier 1 Task Critical Assets, which are assets of such extraordinary importance that their incapacitation or destruction would have a serious, debilitating effect on the ability of one or more military services, combatant commands, or DCIP Defense Infrastructure Sector Lead Agents to execute the mission essential tasks they support. Defense Critical Assets, on the other hand, are the assets most critical for fulfilling overall DOD missions and are identified from the universe of Task Critical Assets. The Joint Staff worked with the combatant commands, military services, and Defense Infrastructure Sector Lead Agents to develop the current departmentwide list of Tier 1 Task Critical Assets. In October 2008, ASD(HD&ASA) formally accepted the Joint Staff's Defense Critical Asset nomination list as an initial list of Defense Critical Assets. In its May 2008 report on H.R. 5658, the House Committee on Armed Services addressed DOD's lack of progress in analyzing the risks of electrical power outages to critical DOD missions through DCIP and, among other things, directed that GAO continue its review of DCIP. As a result, we initiated our on-going review of the assurance of electrical power supplies to DOD's critical assets.While DOD has made some progress in developing a Tier 1 Task Critical Asset list, this progress was limited by DOD's lack of consistent criteria for identifying and prioritizing Tier 1 Task Critical Assets. When selecting and submitting their most recent lists of Tier 1 Task Critical Asset submissions to the Joint Staff, the combatant commands and the military services used disparate sets of guidance, including draft and nonbinding guidance, as their criteria. Air Force officials, however, told us they developed formal critical asset identification guidance based on DOD's draft critical asset identification manual. According to military service and combatant command officials, DOD's draft and nonbinding guidance contained unclear definitions of asset tiers, Task Critical Assets, and other key terms, such as "mission essential tasks." DOD has taken some actions toward promoting coordination among the combatant commands, military services, and Joint Staff in compiling DOD's Tier 1 Task Critical Asset list. For example, in August 2005, DOD issued DOD Directive 3020.40, which calls for coordination among the Joint Staff, combatant commands, military services, and other defense agencies for the purpose of identifying and assessing critical assets needed to implement DOD missions. However, DOD has not yet developed formal coordination responsibilities and an effective coordination mechanism within DCIP, including a forum for coordination between the military services and combatant commands when identifying critical assets. Combatant command and military service officials told us that, in considering which assets to submit to DOD's Tier 1 Task Critical Asset list, they coordinate only minimally with each other when determining which assets are critical to combatant command missions. Based on our analysis of the October 2008 manual and discussions with DCIP officials, we found that the Joint Staff, combatant commands, military services, and other DOD agencies still lack clearly defined coordination responsibilities and a mechanism for effective coordination within DCIP. As a result, the communication and coordination efforts among these key DCIP stakeholders when considering assets to nominate as Tier 1 Task Critical Assets have been insufficient and inconsistent. While DOD has developed a strategy and comprehensive management plan for DCIP, it has not fully developed some DCIP program management elements for identifying Tier 1 Task Critical Assets, which could enhance the effectiveness of the program. DOD's formal critical asset identification process manual issued in 2008 lacks some key elements necessary for sound program management, including clearly defined schedules and milestones for meeting performance goals and a formal feedback process. According to our work on sound management practices, comprehensive program schedules and formal communication strategies assist agencies in effectively implementing programs by providing relevant stakeholders with timelines to follow, performance milestones to meet, and shared expectations to guide their efforts. Because DOD lacks a formal process for submitting critical assets, including milestones and formal feedback from ASD(HD&ASA) or the Joint Staff on meeting program goals, the combatant commands and military services are limited in their ability to effectively select, compile, and validate their final nominations to DOD's Tier 1 Task Critical Asset list.
    [Read More…]
  • The President’s Fiscal Year 2022 Budget
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Cambodia National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Taking Action Against ISIS-K
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve DOD’s Reform Efforts
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) has long sought to reform its enterprise business operations—such as its processes to manage contracts, finances, and supply chain— but faces challenges in improving department-wide management. DOD has taken some actions to improve its business operations data, but remains limited by the lack of reliable cost data, affecting its ability to monitor and inform its reform efforts. Having reliable data to identify baseline costs of the department's business and management functions and to measure progress has been a key challenge facing DOD, but one the department is trying to address. As GAO reported in November 2020, DOD has made progress in setting baseline costs of certain activities, such as logistics and real estate management. Further, DOD has ongoing efforts to develop baselines for all of the department's enterprise business operations that should enable it to better monitor reform progress. However, DOD needs better data about how it performs its business functions. For example, in September 2018, GAO reported that DOD's efforts to reduce inefficiencies in human resources services were hampered by inconsistent performance data across the six organizations that provide these services. DOD has ongoing efforts to address GAO's recommendations. DOD still needs clear roles, responsibilities, authorities and dedicated resources to support reform. GAO has found that demonstrating sustained leadership commitment—including through ensuring that those responsible for leading change have clearly defined and documented roles, responsibilities, and authorities—is imperative for successful business transformation. GAO has assessed many of DOD's organizational structures over the decades, including the recently eliminated Chief Management Officer (CMO) position. GAO found that, while Congress had given the CMO both significant responsibilities and authorities, DOD had not resolved unanswered questions about how those authorities would be carried out, nor communicated the CMO's roles and responsibilities department-wide. GAO also identified instances where CMO reforms were hampered by a lack of resources. As DOD moves to an organization without the CMO position, which was eliminated in 2021, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of those tasked with managing business reform remains important. DOD could also improve its efforts to reliably demonstrate progress toward meaningful reform. DOD has reported achievements from some of its department-wide efforts, such as its reported $37 billion in savings from fiscal years 2017 to 2021. However, GAO reported in November 2020 that while DOD's reported savings were largely reflected in its budget materials, the underlying analyses were not always well documented and the savings were not always consistent with the department's definitions of reform. For example, one reform initiative was based on delaying military construction projects that, according to DOD officials, allowed DOD to fund higher priorities. If a delayed project is still planned, however, the costs will likely be realized in a future year and are not a reflection of business process reform. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations to establish a process to standardize development and documentation of such cost savings, and ensure that reported savings are consistent with the department's definitions of reform. Why GAO Did This Study DOD spends billions of dollars each year to maintain key business operations and defense-wide agencies and programs intended to support the warfighter, including systems and processes related to the management of contracts, finances, the supply chain, support infrastructure, and weapon systems acquisition. The department's approach to transforming these business operations is linked to its ability to perform its overall mission, directly affecting the readiness and capabilities of U.S. military forces. This testimony summarizes GAO's past work related to DOD's efforts to improve the management of its business operations. Specifically, this testimony discusses DOD's efforts to (1) improve data and baselines to monitor and inform reform efforts; (2) establish clear roles, responsibilities, and authorities for leading reform efforts, and dedicate resources to these efforts; and (3) reliably demonstrate progress in its reform efforts. This statement is based on GAO's body of work issued from 2017 through 2020 on DOD management and business reform issues.
    [Read More…]
  • Armenia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Issues Statement on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Efforts to Invest in Competition in the Meatpacking Industry
    In Crime News
    Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta issued the following statement today after the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) request for public comment on how best to invest American Rescue Plan funds to improve competition and resiliency in the meatpacking industry:
    [Read More…]
  • Zambia Independence Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Readout of the Political Directors Small Group Meeting of the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Counselor Chollet’s Travel to Thailand, Singapore, and Indonesia
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Sam’s Test Record for Drupal Testing
    In U.S GAO News
    This is Sam's Test Record for Drupal Testing.
    [Read More…]
  • NASA Develops COVID-19 Prototype Ventilator in 37 Days
    In Space
    A high-pressure [Read More…]
  • United States Condemns Violence Against Peaceful Protesters in Sudan
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • 2020 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Assess Data Quality Concerns Stemming from Recent Design Changes
    In U.S GAO News
    The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) responded to COVID-19 in multiple phases. The Bureau first suspended field operations in March 2020 for two successive 2-week periods to promote the safety of its workforce and the public. In April 2020, the Bureau extended this suspension to a total of 3 months for Non-response Follow-up (NRFU), the most labor-intensive decennial field operation that involves hundreds of thousands of enumerators going door-to-door to collect census data from households that have not yet responded to the census. At that time, the Department of Commerce also requested from Congress a 120-day extension to statutory deadlines providing census data for congressional apportionment and redistricting purposes, and the Bureau developed and implemented plans to deliver the population counts by those requested deadlines. The Bureau implemented NRFU in multiple waves between July 16 and August 9, 2020, to ensure that operational systems and procedures were ready for nationwide use. The Bureau considered COVID-19 case trends, the availability of personal protective equipment, and the availability of staff in deciding which areas to start NRFU first. On August 3, 2020, the Bureau announced that, as directed by the Secretary of Commerce, it would accelerate its operational timeframes to deliver population counts by the original statutory deadlines. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in September 2020 issued an injunction that reversed the Secretary's August 2020 directions for design changes and the Bureau's adherence to the statutory deadlines, but the Supreme Court ultimately stayed this injunction in October 2020 and allowed the Bureau to proceed with its August 2020 design changes. As a result, the Bureau shortened NRFU by over 2 weeks and reduced the time allotted for response processing after NRFU from 153 days to 77 days. GAO has previously noted that late design changes create increased risk for a quality census. The Bureau is examining ways to share quality indicators of the census in the near term and has a series of planned operational assessments, coverage measurement exercises, and data quality teams that are positioned to retrospectively study the effects of design changes made in the response to COVID-19 on census data quality. The Bureau is still in the process of updating its plans for these efforts to examine the range of operational modifications made in response to COVID-19, including the August 2020 and later changes. As part of the Bureau's assessments, it will be important to address a number of concerns GAO identified about how late changes to the census design could affect data quality. These concerns range from how the altered time frames have affected population counts during field data collection to what effects, if any, compressed and streamlined post-data collection processing of census data may have on the Bureau's ability to detect and fully address processing or other errors before releasing the apportionment and redistricting tabulations. Addressing these concerns as part of the overall 2020 assessment will help the Bureau ensure public confidence in the 2020 Census and inform future census planning efforts. As the Bureau was mailing out invitations to respond to the decennial census and was preparing for fieldwork to count nonresponding households, much of the nation began closing down to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, the Bureau has made a series of changes to the design of the census. Understanding the chronology of events and the Bureau's decisions, along with the factors and information sources that it considered, can help to shed light on the implications and tradeoffs of the Bureau's response. This report, the first in a series of retrospective reviews on the 2020 Census, examines the key changes that the Bureau made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and how those changes affect the cost and quality of the census. GAO performed its work under the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct evaluations on the 2020 Census to assist Congress with its oversight responsibilities. GAO reviewed Bureau decision memos, interviewed Bureau officials, and consulted contemporaneous COVID-19 case data for context on the Bureau's COVID-19 response. GAO is recommending that the Bureau update and implement its assessments to address data quality concerns identified in this report, as well as any operational benefits. In its comments, the Department of Commerce agreed with GAO's findings and recommendation. The Bureau also provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov or Nick Marinos at 202-512-9342 or by email at marinosn@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Briefing With State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Scott W. Busby
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Scott Busby, Deputy [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Zakka Jacob of CNN-News18
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Man Charged with $5 Million COVID-Relief Fraud
    In Crime News
    A Texas man has been charged in the Eastern District of Texas with allegedly filing bank loan applications fraudulently seeking more than $5 million dollars in forgivable loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
    [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.