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.
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
