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/
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
