Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gE7c7NZB and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-6cFxd2 and at https://lnkd.in/gQQuEaD5 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.
Injury by "Existence" of a Pit Bull Dog Unambiguously Excluded
In July 2020, a young boy was injured when a dog attacked him in an apartment complex owned by Missy J, LLC. In Missy J, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 21-cv-848-SE, Opinion No. 2022 DNH 157, United States District Court, D. New Hampshire (December 19, 2022) the insurer refused to defend or indemnify Missy J because of an “Animals Exclusion.”
After the boy's mother sued Missy J to recover for his injuries, Missy J sought coverage from its insurer, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, under its commercial general liability policy. Westchester denied coverage and refused to defend Missy J.
BACKGROUND
Missy J owns an apartment complex in Manchester, New Hampshire. The policy includes an “Animals Exclusion” provision as follows: “This insurance does not apply to 'bodily injury' ... resulting from the ... existence, ... of animals on an insured's premises ... including a. dogs... ”
On July 10, 2020, a pitbull attacked a young boy who was visiting at one of the apartments in the complex. The boy's mother, Briona Reed-Sounia, sued Missy J, Westchester denied coverage on the basis of the policy's animal exclusion provision.
DISCUSSION
Missy J and Westchester agree that Missy J's liability for the dog attack would have been covered under the policy but for the animal exclusion provision.
The plain language excluded a visitor's bodily injury that arose out of the existence or presence of a dog on Missy J's premises, The animal exclusion provision is written in clear and unambiguous language. Therefore, Westchester carried its burden to show the absence of coverage under the policy.
ZALMA OPINION
Just because Westchester and Missy J disagreed about the meaning of a clear and unambiguous exclusion does not make the term ambiguous. Since the dog existed on the premises of the insured and was the cause of the child's injuries, the exclusion applied. That it would also apply if the dog was placed there for Missy J as a guard dog does not eliminate the exclusion for any dog that existed on the premises.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
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 ...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
The Collateral-Source Rule is a Narrow Exception to the Prohibition Against Double Recovery
Post 4850
Posted on September 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Surety Stands In The Principal’s Shoes And May Assert The Principal’s Defenses.
In Hudson Insurance Company v. Archer Western Federal, JV, No. 1:24-cv-544 (PTG/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division (September 18, 2026) Archer Western Federal, JV (“AWF”), the prime contractor for a new fire station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, subcontracted roofing work to Eastern General Contractor, Inc. (“EGC”) for $456,330.
Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) issued payment and performance bonds, each with a $456,330 penal sum.
AWF later sought recovery under both bonds.
LAW
Under Virginia law, the collateral-source rule is a narrow exception to the prohibition against double recovery. A surety stands in the principal’s shoes and may assert the principal’s defenses. Liability under the bonds required EGC’s ...
Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)
After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...
