You only Get What You Pay For
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRy8M8Hf and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gx3xBFwe and at https://lnkd.in/g6WD6dDM and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
In Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Michael Cook, Michael Schuster, and Highland Auto Glass, Inc., No. 21-cv-348-JPG, United States District Court, S.D. Illinois (March 9, 2023) Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s motion for summary sought declarations that its policy owed neither defense, indemnity nor uninsured motorist coverage to the defendants.
BACKGROUND
Schuster and Cook on one side and Devin Dahmer on the other were involved in an auto accident. Schuster, president and sole shareholder of Highland, was driving a van he and Highland jointly owned with Cook as his passenger. Both Schuster and Cook were injured in the accident. Cook sued Highland, Schuster, and Dahmer for negligence.
Auto-Owners seeks declarations regarding a “Tailored Protection” insurance policy. Auto-Owners argued that the Auto-Owners Garage Policy does not cover vehicles owned by Highland or Schuster like the vehicle involved in this accident.
FACTS
Schuster was driving a Ford Econoline van he and Highland owned jointly; Cook was his passenger. Dahmer pulled his van into the roundabout in front of the Highland van, nearly missing the van. Down the road, Dahmer pulled over, and Schuster pulled the Highland van to the side of the road several car lengths in front of Dahmer’s van. Schuster got out, and then Dahmer drove his van into the Highland van, injuring Schuster and Cook. Dahmer’s insurance paid its limits to Schuster, and then Schuster made a claim for a defense, indemnity, and UIM coverage under Highland’s Garage Policy.
The Garage Policy
When obtaining insurance from Auto-Owners, Highland paid premiums for coverage under Division II only which limited the available coverage.
ANALYSIS
To determine if the underlying suit alleges a situation potentially within the insurance coverage, the Court is required to compare the complaint to the relevant provisions of the insurance policy. If any theory of recovery in the underlying complaint falls within the insurance coverage, the insurer will have a duty to defend.
The Garage Policy is clear that the policy covers bodily injury arising out of an automobile “not owned, hired leased, rented, or registered by the insured or an officer, if it is a corporation.”
Highland was the insured and Schuster was an officer of Highland, and they both owned the Econoline van so there was no coverage under that section for bodily injuries arising from the Econoline van, including from the collision between Dahmer and the van. The only identified Garage Policy provision that would potentially cover bodily injuries arising out of automobiles owned by the insured is Division I coverage, which Highland did not purchase. Since there is no coverage of the Econoline van under Section II, there is also no underinsured motorist coverage arising from an accident with that van.
Schuster agreed but claimed that the “exclusion,” at least to the extent it precludes UIM coverage, violates public policy. The insured bears the heavy burden of showing an insurance provision violates public policy. Schuster pointed to nothing in the Garage Policy that violates Illinois public policy. Rather, he asked the court to award him the coverage he declined to purchase. It does not violate public policy to exclude coverage an insured expressly declined to purchase when it was available.
The court also noted that Schuster was not being left without a remedy for injuries caused by an underinsured motorist. Schuster maintained a separate personal automobile insurance policy from Owners Insurance Company, an affiliate of Auto-Owners, as required by the Financial Responsibility Law and Owners paid the UIM coverage under that policy.
The court granted Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly, including declarations that: Auto-Owners owed no duty to defend or indemnify defendants Highland Auto Glass, Inc. and Michael Schuster in connection with the lawsuit Cook v. Highland, in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois; and Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company owes no underinsured motorist coverage to Michael Schuster under the Auto-Owners policy.
ZALMA OPINION
A person seeking insurance is faced with the obligation to determine what coverage to buy before an accident occurs where the coverage is needed. The insureds chose a limited coverage, declined to buy a more extensive coverage, and after an accident tried to get the court cure the error and – with an argument that the policy violates public policy – and give them the coverage they refused to buy. Courts are required to interpret insurance contracts they are not required to, nor will they ever, rewrite a policy.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
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]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
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.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/gYRSCfzn.
Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
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 ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
