Assuming that Coverage Exists Does not Make a Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contract-without-offer-acceptance-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v1gh8uj-no-contract-without-offer-and-acceptance.html and at
and at https://claimschool.com/?p=137 plus more than 4300 posts at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on August 19, 2022 by barryzalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1gh8uj-no-contract-without-offer-and-acceptance.html and at
Barry A. Lindsten appealed a circuit court order dismissing his action against Astronautics Corporation of America (Astronautics) and Robertson Ryan &Associates, Inc. and Michael R. Schulte (Robertson Ryan).
In Barry A. Lindsten, Sarah M. Lindsten v. Astronautics Corporation of America, Mayo Medical Plan, Trumbull Insurance Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Defendants, Robertson Ryan &Associates, Inc. and Michael R. Schulte, ABC Insurance Company, No. 2021AP115, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I (August 16, 2022) the Court of Appeals resolved the issues raised by Lindsten.
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2016, in Milwaukee County, a motor vehicle struck a rental vehicle driven by Lindsten. At the time of the accident, Lindsten was in Wisconsin to perform work for his employer, Astronautics, who provided and paid for the rental vehicle.
Lindsten alleged that Astronautics and its insurance agent/broker, Robertson Ryan, had failed to provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Astronautics moved to lift the stay for the limited purpose of addressing whether it was a proper party in the case.
The circuit court granted Astronautics’ motion to lift the stay and allowed the parties to conduct discovery on the following limited issues: (1) whether Lindsten was acting within the scope of his employment for Astronautics when the accident at issue took place; and (2) whether Astronautics entered into a contract with Lindsten to specifically provide UIM coverage.
Lindsten filed an amended complaint. Lindsten raised two causes of action against Astronautics: (1) breach of an oral contract; and (2) reformation. According to Lindsten, on or prior to the date of the accident, he was informed by Astronautics’ travel administrator that Astronautics “would provide full insurance coverage” and “would take care of all his insurance needs on rental cars.” Based on prior travel experience with previous employers, Lindsten assumed this included UIM coverage. Lindsten further alleged that the travel administrator informed him that he should sign an insurance waiver to specifically opt out of the insurance coverage offered by the rental agency in favor of the coverage provided by Astronautics.
In regards to Robertson Ryan, Lindsten also raised two causes of action: (1) breach of contract; and (2) negligence. Lindsten alleged that Astronautics had specifically requested that Robertson Ryan provide UIM coverage, and that Robertson Ryan had failed to procure a policy that would provide UIM coverage. Further, Lindsten alleged that if Robertson Ryan had procured the UIM coverage, Lindsten would have been a third-party beneficiary of any such insurance coverage.
Both Astronautics and Robertson Ryan filed a motion to dismiss. Astronautics contended that the allegation that Astronautics agreed to take care of all of Lindsten’s insurance needs was not specific enough to cover an offer to provide UIM coverage, thus, no contract was created. Further, Astronautics contended that only written contracts could be reformed.
The circuit court granted the motions to dismiss. The court explained that a “specific offer” is required to create an insurance contract, and that it is not enough to simply allege that there was an offer for “insurance,” “full coverage,” or “insurance needs.” Rather, the pleadings needed to specifically refer to UIM coverage.
DISCUSSION
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences out of which the claim arises and showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. In other words, a complaint must plead facts, which if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted is a question of law that we review de novo, benefitting from the circuit court’s decision. The court will accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint but will not accept any legal conclusions. Factual allegations must be more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
On appeal, Lindsten asserts that the circuit court erred in granting the motions to dismiss. When certain conditions exist, a statute provides the exclusive remedy for recovery for an employee against an employer. Lindsten’s brief-in-chief fails to address why this doctrine does not apply. We generally do not address undeveloped arguments, and we decline to do so here. The trial court’s decision was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
A person cannot create a contract without being able to prove that there was an offer, acceptance of the offer, and payment of consideration. Lindsten claimed that there was an oral contract to provide him all insurance he needed. Even if there was an offer and acceptance of that offer it was too vague to make sense or to be enforceable. Insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured. Lindsten was neither an insurer nor was he an insured. He was the employee of the insured.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
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. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
