No Coverage if Injuries not Related to Use of MRI
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g-QFrDWP and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gztbWjVz and at https://lnkd.in/g-GZfsF2 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4350 posts.
In John Fitzpatrick and Colleen Fitzpatrick v. Oradell Animal Hospital, Inc., et. al, No. A-3442-20, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (November 1, 2022) Plaintiffs appealed from a June 17, 2021 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Continental Casualty Company (Continental).
Plaintiff sustained injuries on March 6, 2015, when an (MRI) machine at defendant Oradell exploded. Oradell leased the MRI machine from defendant Advanced Veterinary Technologies, Inc. (AVT).
The lease agreement required AVT to install the MRI machine at Oradell’s facility. At the end of the term, the lease agreement provided “AVT shall deinstall, inspect, test, pack, remove and ship the [MRI machine] at AVT’s expense.” The lease agreement also stated AVT was responsible for “the repair of any damage to [Oradell’s premises] on account of the removal of the [MRI machine] . . . .”
Oradell complied with the insurance provision by purchasing insurance from Continental. While decommissioning the MRI machine, Hogan testified he “pick[ed] something up off the ground” and was surrounded by a “white cloud of helium.” A split second later, the MRI machine exploded.
Decisions on Summary Judgment
The judge found Hogan’s “actions did not arise out of Oradell’s maintenance, operation or use of the MRI machine,” because Hogan was decommissioning the MRI machine on the date of the explosion. The judge concluded the decommissioning of the MRI machine was “the antithesis of the maintenance, operations and/or use of the MRI.”
Analysis
Equipment is only decommissioned upon the expiration of the lease term. For Hogan to be eligible for coverage under the Policy, there had to be a substantial nexus between plaintiffs’ injuries and Oradell’s maintenance, operation, or use of the MRI machine. No Oradell employee was in the room when the MRI machine exploded. Nor had any Oradell employees participated in the two-day decommissioning process prior to the explosion. On this record, there is no evidence Oradell maintained, operated, or used the MRI machine after March 4, 2015.
ZALMA OPINION
It is always interesting and encouraging to see a court opinion where the court read every word of the insurance policy, noted that for coverage to apply the entity seeking insurance must maintain, operate or use the exploding MRI machine.
(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] 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
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
. 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 ...
No Summary Judgment for Bad Faith for Lack of Evidence
Post 5437
Posted on August 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Avoids Summary Judgment
In Riley and Rebecca Ross v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company, and Illinois Corporation, No. 2:25-CV-00006-JAG, United States District Court, E.D. Washington (August 18, 2026), Pending before the USDC was Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment the plaintiffs brought claims against Allstate arising from its handling of an insurance claim. They alleged Allstate failed to make proper payment, adequately investigate the loss, retain an expert, respond to communications, and properly value damages including alternative living expenses and damage to a hydronic heating system.
Plaintiffs argued Defendant failed “to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies.”
ISSUES
Allstate sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), ...
The Need to Read an Insurance Policy
Posted on August 27, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Courts Have Established a Duty to Read an Insurance Policy
Post 5436
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
You will read from this link until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
This is a taste of the latest Excellence in Claims Handling Article for subscribers to my substack.
Every person that acquires a policy of insurance, whether designed to protect a dwelling, a commercial property, agriculture, crops from destruction by the actions of nature, or from liability arising from claims of torts, or cyber-attacks, must read and understand the policy before it is acquired to determine whether it provides the coverage requested. If a loss that could be subject to ...
Mere Negligence, Poor Judgment, Delay, Inadequate Investigation, Valuation Disagreement, or an Honest Mistake May Not Establish Bad Faith.
Post 5433
Posted on August 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Joseph Russell Falasco v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, No. 25-2632, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (August 18, 2026) Joseph Russell Falasco insured a restored 1974 Porsche 911S through USAA. After the Porsche caught fire in August 2023, Falasco reported the loss and initially believed the vehicle was a total loss. USAA investigated the origin and cause of the fire, sent a reservation-of-rights letter, retained an appraiser, and referred the claim to its special investigations unit after questions arose about whether the fire was accidental.
The investigation ultimately indicated the fire likely resulted from deteriorated fuel lines rather than intentional conduct.
USAA offered $46,106.75 based on a CCC valuation using two comparable Porsche vehicles. Falasco disputed the valuation, argued the comparables ...
