General Contractor Not a Lawyer
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmQRzFR7 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKMZpQ42 and at https://lnkd.in/gjkV4Kvj and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4300 posts.
Steven Hester Hall appealed from an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Hall’s claims for breach of fiduciary duties, insurance licensing violations, bank fraud, insurance fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, harassment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
In Steven Hester Hall v. Brunswick Plantation Property Owners Association, Greg Mayol, Cathy Six, And Community Association Management Services, No. COA21-748, 2022-NCCOA-604, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 6, 2022) Hall wanted to build a house without the bond required by the Community Associations’ regulations.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Hall is a general contractor and the CEO of Eco Lakes Construction, LLC. Eco Lakes owns real property at 649 Covington Drive NW, Calabash, NC (“property”), in the Brunswick Plantation and Golf Course Community (“Community”). Defendants are the Brunswick Plantation Property Owners Association (“Association”); Community Association Management, the property management company for the Association; Greg Mayol, the Community Association Manager for the Community; and Cathy Six, the Administrator for the Architectural Standards Committee for the Association.
The Contract Performance and Master Deportment Agreement (“Master Deportment Agreement”) is a contract between the Architectural Standards Committee and a general contractor on a construction project in the Community. The Master Deportment Agreement requires the general contractor to provide to the Association a $5,000 bond to be held as security for the performance of the construction project in accordance with the community governing documents-the Brunswick Plantation Architectural Plan and Residential Design and Construction Standards, and the Amended and Restated Master Declaration and Development Plan for Brunswick Plantation.
Plaintiff submitted plans to construct a home on the property but did not provide the $5,000 Contractor Compliance Bond required by the Master Deportment Agreement. Defendants declined to act on Plaintiff’s construction proposal until he provided the bond. Plaintiff sought a bond waiver; Defendants declined to issue a waiver. Plaintiff again refused to provide the bond, and Defendants directed Plaintiff to cease construction on the lot.
On 23 April 2021, Plaintiff Hall sued and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, and motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants. The trial court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.
In an amended complaint, Hall alleged breach of fiduciary duties, insurance licensing violations, bank fraud, insurance fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, harassment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended. Hall moved to amend his complaint to add additional causes of action and an additional defendant, and an objection to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on 29 July 2021.
DISCUSSION
When dealing with a motion to dismiss the court must liberally construe the allegations and the court should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts to support his claim which would entitle him to relief.
The caption of Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that he is bringing actions for breach of fiduciary duties, insurance licensing violations, bank fraud, insurance fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, harassment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The suit indicates only that Hall is challenging the propriety of the Contractor Compliance Bond as required by the Master Deportment Agreement. Hall failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.
Standing
In order for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim, the party bringing the claim must have standing. Standing means that the party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Every claim must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. A real party in interest is a party who is benefited or injured by the judgment in the case. A lack of standing may be challenged by motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court noted that Hall appeared to argue that the Amended and Restated Master Declaration and Development Plan for Brunswick Plantation was unenforceable because it is ambiguous and is a restrictive covenant on the property. Plaintiff does not own the property, nor does he have a protected legal interest in the property. Accordingly he lacked standing to bring this action.
In the alternative, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff did not have the authority to bring suit on behalf of Eco Lakes. In North Carolina a corporation must be represented by a duly admitted and licensed attorney-at-law and cannot proceed pro se.
Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff is a licensed attorney. Rather, Plaintiff is a general contractor and is the president and CEO of Eco Lakes. To the extent Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of Eco Lakes, he may not do so.
The trial court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
This case is an example of the misuse by a litigant of allegations of insurance fraud and the tort of bad faith which had no relationship to the problem. To avoid buying a miniscule $5,000 bond, Hall fled suit alleging the planned community where he wanted to build a house accusing the defendants of multiple torts and the crime of insurance fraud because they insisted he obtain a bond. He had no standing and was, if anything, attempting to bludgeon the defendants and cause it to retain counsel and defend this spurious claim. The Court of Appeal refused to honor his scheme and should have sanctioned him for bringing the case without standing.
(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 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/
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
