How Ethical Doctrines from the Beginning of the Written Word to the Present Resulted in the Incorporation of the Covenant of Good Faith
New Book from Barry Zalma
The Compact Book on Ethics for the Insurance Professional
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gCVTzc2C and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gERBXeD3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghU3vDaC and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4300 posts.
Posted on October 8, 2022 by Barry Zalma
How Ethical Doctrines from the Beginning of the Written Word to the Present Resulted in the Incorporation of the Covenant of Good Faith
Every Person Involved in the Business of Insurance Must Act Ethically in the Business of Insurance
Insurance is, by definition, a business of the utmost good faith. This means that both parties to the contract of insurance must act fairly and in good faith to each other and do nothing that will deprive the other of the benefits the contract of insurance promised.
Without the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and ethical people who work in the insurance industry applying and fulfilling the covenant, effective insurance to spread the risk of loss to a large community of insurance professionals, is impossible. One cannot act fairly and in good faith without being a person with a well-formed ethical compass.
In 1776, Lord Mansfield acting as an appellate judge serving in the House of Lords of Britain (the predecessor of the United Kingdom) for the first time referred to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the case designated: Carter v. Boehm S.C. 1 Bl. Burr 1906, 11th May 1766. 593, 3 Lord Mansfield in the British House of Lords stated the rule of uberrimae fide (Latin for utmost good faith).
Ethics & Ethical Behavior are Essential to Every Insurance Professional
Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
Insurers, when deciding to insure or not insure a risk, rely on the information provided to them by the insured. As Lord Mansfield instructed, the insured must provide the information requested thoroughly, honestly and in good faith.
The implied covenant is simply stated by explaining that no party to a contract of insurance should do anything to deprive the other of the benefits of the contract.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes obligations on all parties to the contract of insurance. It not only applied to claims by an insurer, a first party property insured, a third party liability policy insured, the insurer, the insurer’s employees, underwriters, and claims personnel.
Since at least 1766, the business of insurance is a business of the utmost good faith. Each party to a contract of insurance must deal with each other ethically. This book will consider and explain different ethical concepts from the Code of Hammurabi more than 3000 years ago to modern ethical philosophers.
The general duty of good faith and fair dealing incorporated by reference into every policy of insurance requires a complete understanding of ethics and ethical behavior. For Example, the California Supreme Court noted that: “In every insurance contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” [Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 9 Cal.3d. 566, 108 Cal. Rptr. 480 (1973)].
The covenant is mutual, and the principles of good faith and fair dealing impose an affirmative obligation on the insured to cooperate as much as it requires the insurer to treat the insured fairly with regard to every claim presented.
This is a duty imposed by tradition, by the need to deal fairly and by court precedent and statutory law, not one arising from the terms of the contract itself.
The duty to deal fairly and in good faith is nonconsensual in origin rather than consensual. It is an unwritten, but essential part of every insurance contract.
It is imposed to fulfill the spirit, as well as the letter, of the insurance relationship and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is a statement of the ethical basis of the insurance business.
Without the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and ethical people who work in the insurance industry applying and fulfilling the covenant, effective insurance to spread the risk of loss to a large community of insurance professionals, is impossible. One cannot act fairly and in good faith without being a person with a well-formed ethical compass.
In 1776, Lord Mansfield acting as an appellate judge serving in the House of Lords of Britain (the predecessor of the United Kingdom) for the first time referred to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the case designated: Carter v. Boehm S.C. 1 Bl. Burr 1906, 11th May 1766. 593, 3 Lord Mansfield in the British House of Lords stated the rule of uberrimae fide (Latin for utmost good faith):
Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
Insurers, when deciding to insure or not insure a risk, when deciding to honor or reject a claim, rely on the information provided to them by the insured. As Lord Mansfield instructed, the insured must provide the information requested thoroughly, honestly and in good faith.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes obligations on all parties to the contract of insurance. It not only applied to claims by an insurer, a first party property insured, a third party liability policy insured, the insurer, the insurer’s employees, underwriters, and claims personnel.Since at least 1766, the business of insurance is a business of the utmost good faith. Each party to a contract of insurance must deal with each other ethically.
What is The Purpose of the Book
This book considers and explains different ethical concepts from the Code of Hammurabi more than 3000 years ago to modern ethical philosophers.
The book covers, at least:
What is Insurance?
Ethics & Ethical Behavior.
Ethical Insurance
The Development of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing.
The Tort of Bad Faith
The Ethical Insurance Professional
Applying Ethics to the Work of the Insurance Professional
Sarbanes Oxley & the Ethical Insurance Professional
What Happens When a Cort Creates an Ethical Conflict When None Exists?
Ethics and Insurance Fraud
Ethics in the Insurance Industry
Case Studies of Ethical Breach
The general duty of good faith and fair dealing incorporated by reference into every policy of insurance requires a complete understanding of ethics and ethical behavior.
It is imposed to fulfill the spirit, as well as the letter, of the insurance relationship and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is a statement of the ethical basis of the insurance business.
The book is available as a Kindle book, a Paperback or a Hardcover
Who Needs This Book?
If you employ people in the business of insurance your business will be improved if every one of your employees reads and applies the ethical concepts described in the book.
If you are an insurance claims professional, an adjuster, supervisor, claims manager, defense counsel, or insurance coverage counsel the book will provide the knowledge necessary to apply the ethical concepts described in this book.
If you are a person insured or about to be insured you need this book to understand your ethical obligations to the insurer and the insurer’s ethical obligations to you.
The Author
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] 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.
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, available here. The new book is available as a Kindle book, a paperback or as a hard cover.
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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
