Former Louisiana Attorney Charged in Hurricane Ida Insurance Fraud Scheme
Richard William Huye III faces a charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a scheme targeting homeowners after Hurricane Ida; the case has not yet been decided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 4:20 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 4:20 a.m. ETFirst report
Louisiana Attorney Charged in Hurricane Ida Insurance Fraud Scheme
Richard William Huye III, 34, has been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with an alleged scheme targeting Louisiana homeowners after Hurricane Ida, according to americanpress.com. The charges were reported on August 31, 2026, and the case remains at the charging stage; the matter is undecided and has not been resolved. Huye is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
The government alleges that Huye and a law firm effectively claimed to represent hundreds of homeowners without their knowledge or permission, telling insurers they represented the homeowners while hiding their true relationship with a roofing company. Some homeowners allegedly never received money or received less due to unauthorized deductions, as reported by americanpress.com. These allegations have not been proven in court.
The charge carries a statutory maximum of up to five years in prison, according to americanpress.com. The case is ongoing, and no trial date has been set.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 08:22current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 08:20current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.