Real quick, the other day I reported on how Python Leads had slithered out of a case based on jurisdictional grounds.

Well the Plaintiff-Final Expense Direct–is not going away.

They re-filed their suit last week looking to collect the ~$100k in costs and settlement dollars they spent as a result of an allegedly bad lead sold by Python.

Allegations here are pretty interesting.

Despite Defendants’ contractual obligation, Python refused to participate
or indemnify Final Expense for at least three (3) of the lawsuits. In these lawsuits,
Final Expense incurred substantial attorneys’ fees defending the suits and ultimately
paid over $100,000.00 to settle the claims.

Ms. Levin stated to Final Expense that the
reason she and Python would not participate was that Python could not afford to pay
the $100,000.00, despite prior representations that Python had $1 million for suits.
(Exhibit R, e-mail from Ali Raza to Mr. Beauchamp, dated March 2, 2021, stating:
“We [Python] have Unlimited Defense through Berkshire Hathaway for litigation
issues! and we have up to 1 million $$ defense!”) (errors in original)).

Moreover, in response to TCPA violation complaints against Final Expense, Mr. Levin, on behalf
of Python, drafted correspondence to complainants and engaged with complainants’
legal counsel. (Exhibit Q).It was in these conversations that Mr. Levin privately
disclosed—without Final Expenses’ contemporaneous knowledge—that Python could
not afford legal counsel for TCPA complaints brought against Final Expense. (Id.,
dated March 18, 2022, wherein Mr. Levin states: “We do not think we can afford counsel right now.”). As Python continues to refuse to participate or indemnify Final
Expense in lawsuits, the harm incurred by Final Expense, which includes monetary
damages and reputational harm, continues to rise and becomes difficult to estimate

You can read the whole complaint here: Python Leads Complaint