Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
January 21, 2022
Insurance is a Contract of Personal Indemnity

Insurer’s Only Obligation is to the Person Insured

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-contract-personal-indemnity-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-1c and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4050 posts.

It is axiomatic that first party property insurance is a contract of personal indemnity. It does not follow title to the land and only pays those who are named on the policy as an insured and have an insurable interest. Someone who has an insurable interest but is not named has no right to the policy.

Konstantinos Kapnisis (Kapnisis) appealed from the judgment after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Colony Insurance Company (Colony). In Konstantinos Kapnisis v. Colony Insurance Company, B308056, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division (January 19, 2022) the California Court of Appeals resolved an issue regarding that an insurer only needs to pay he who is insured.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Kapnisis wanted to buy a restaurant called Big Oaks. Kapnisis signed a purchase agreement and a month-to-month lease to rent Big Oaks pending the close of escrow. The lease required him to pay Big Oaks’ insurance premium in order to operate the restaurant. Colony subsequently issued a policy naming Big Oaks as the insured. Two weeks later, a fire destroyed Big Oaks. Colony issued checks payable to “Big Oaks” and sent payment to the mailing address listed in the insurance policy.

Big Oaks was a restaurant located on land owned by the United States Forest Service. In 2012, Hitendra Golakiea and his wife, Ila Patel, purchased Big Oaks.  Golakiea and Patel decided to sell, and Kapnisis offered to purchase, Big Oaks for $220,000. The parties signed a Commercial Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (Purchase Agreement). The Purchase Agreement stated, among other things, that the offer was contingent upon Kapnisis obtaining:

a special use permit from the United States Forest Service; and

a permanent liquor license from the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

The title of Big Oaks would be conveyed through a grant deed “at the close of escrow.” On the same day that he signed the Purchase Agreement, Kapnisis signed a month-to-month Commercial Lease Agreement (Lease) with Golakiea and Patel to lease Big Oaks. Kapnisis signed the Lease in order to begin operating Big Oaks before the sale of the property closed. The lease required Kapnisis, as the tenant, to pay the operating expenses and utilities, insurance premiums, and real property taxes. As of July 2017, Kapnisis managed Big Oaks and lived on the property.

Kapnisis never obtained either the special use permit from the United States Forest Service nor the requisite liquor license. Because of his failure to obtain the required documents, escrow never closed. Therefore, title to Big Oaks did not transfer to Kapnisis.

INSURANCE POLICY

Under the terms of the Lease, Kapnisis was responsible for paying the insurance on Big Oaks. In June 2018, Kapnisis received a call from Big Oaks’ insurance broker, Huntington Pacific Insurance Agency, and learned that the insurance policy on Big Oaks was up for renewal.

On June 17, 2018, the insurance broker, through an intermediary, obtained a quote for Big Oaks from Colony. The quote included $255,000 in building coverage and $100,000 in contents coverage, for a premium of $4,145.54. The application for insurance for Big Oaks, was signed by Kapnisis. The only applicant listed was “Big Oaks Lodge,” with a handwritten address of 33101 Bouquet Canyon Road, Saugus CA 91390, which was the physical address of the restaurant. Colony then issued its Policy, listing “Big Oaks” as the insured. The listed mailing address was 2533 North Lamer Street, Burbank CA 91504 (the North Lamer address). This mailing address was also Patel’s residential address.

Kapnisis paid the insurance broker the premium and received a receipt from the insurance broker with his name handwritten on it.

THE FIRE

On August 11, 2018 a fire broke out at Big Oaks and the entire building burned down. Kapnisis and Patel each made claims with Colony for policy benefits as a result of the fire. Patel told Colony that she was the owner of Big Oak and Kapnisis was the tenant. Kapnisis also claimed he was the owner of Big Oaks; however, he did not provide Colony with any documentation proving he owned Big Oaks at the time of the fire.

In September 2018, Colony issued a series of checks made payable to “Big Oaks” for the fire loss. Colony paid a total of $335,368.76. Colony sent the checks to the North Lamer address.

THE LAWSUIT

Kapnisis initiated this lawsuit against Colony for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, negligence, and declaratory relief. He also sought punitive damages against Colony. Colony filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, arguing that there was no breach of contract because it complied with the express terms of the Policy by writing checks to “Big Oaks” and mailing those checks to the address listed on the Policy. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion as to all causes of action and entered judgment in favor of Colony.

DISCUSSION

The standard elements of a breach of contract claim are:

the existence of a contract,

the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance,

the defendant’s breach, and

resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990, 999.)

The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law and follows the general rules of contract interpretation.

Since Kapnisis did not dispute that “Big Oaks” was the named insured on the Policy and that the insurance proceeds were mailed to the address listed on the Policy; and that neither Kapnisis nor his address were listed on the Policy; Colony satisfied its contractual obligations to pay policy benefits to “Big Oaks” at the address listed on the Policy.

Colony followed the express terms of the Policy and any dispute beyond that, such as Patel’s authority to cash those checks, is not between Kapnisis and Colony but potentially between Kapnisis and Patel. Colony complied with its contractual obligations to pay the insurance proceeds to the listed insured and corresponding address in the Policy.

Kapnisis failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact as to Colony’s alleged breach of contract. Absent a breach of contract, Colony did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. T

ZALMA OPINION

It is rare, in my experience, for people who purchase insurance to actually read the policy acquired. At the time Colony’s policy was issued Kapnisis had an insurable interest in the property that held the Big Oaks restaurant and lodge but had no ownership interest in an entity called “Big Oaks.” He never asked Colony, or his broker, to name him as an insured on the policy because he did not read it – and probably did not read the application either – he was not an insured of the policy and it only insured the risks faced by the actual owner of “Big Oaks” Ms. Patel. Insurance only pays the person insured as long as that person has an insurable interest in the property. Patel, as the owner of Big Oaks had that interest and was named; Kapnisis had an insurable interest but was not named.

© 2022 – Barry Zalma

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business.

Subscribe to “Zalma on Insurance” at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe and “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

You can contact Mr. Zalma at https://www.zalma.com, https://www.claimschool.com, [email protected] and [email protected] . Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.

You may find interesting the podcast “Zalma On Insurance” at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma;  you can follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at; you should  see Barry Zalma’s videos on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; or videos on https://rumble.com/zalma. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims–library/ The last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ 

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

After ...

00:12:33
July 20, 2026
Search Warrant Produces Evidence of Insurance Fraud

Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397

Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX

Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.

In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”

As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.

LAW:

The ...

00:08:22
July 17, 2026
The Great Jewel Theft

Fraud Shouldn’t Pay

Post 5396

See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.

One month after the policy was ...

00:09:42
9 hours ago
Plaintiff Sues Because State Employees Stigmatized Her

Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State

Post 5421

Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial

In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.

She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.

LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

As a result, the...

See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals