Claims Made Policy May Not Respond to Claims Made After Expiration of the Policy
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gcWbfr5F and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gxDXS7cy and at https://lnkd.in/gwYgqvCX and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
Twin City Fire Insurance Company sold a malpractice insurance policy to John S. Xydakis, an attorney and one of the Defendants. Xydakis made claims under the policy based on lawsuits and motions filed against him in Illinois state court. Twin City sought a declaratory judgment that it owes no insurance coverage to Defendants for these claims or, in the alternative, rescission of the policy. In Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. Law Office Of John S. Xydakis, P.C., et al., No. 18 C 6387, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (March 20, 2023) the USDC resolved the dispute.
In the affidavit to which Xydakis objected, Twin City’s counsel avered that several publicly filed documents were either served on Twin City or retrieved from the Cook County Clerk of Court or the Illinois Appellate Court and his objection failed because the Court could take judicial notice of publicly filed documents in other courts if, as in this case, their existence was not subject to reasonable dispute.
Underlying Lawsuits
The Chen Lawsuit.
Fiona Chen Consulting Company (“Chen Consulting”) sued Xydakis for failing to pay retained expert witness fees. Xydakis filed a sworn Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim against Chen Consulting, demonstrating that all the acts and conduct related to the Chen Lawsuit occurred between January 2012 and November 2012.
The Spiegel Motions for Sanctions.
Litigants in a separate set of lawsuits (collectively the “Spiegel Lawsuits”) brought three motions for sanctions The presiding Cook County judge ruled on all three motions and entered judgment against Spiegel and Xydakis for over $1,000,000.
The Klein Lawsuit.
On August 14, 2019, Tiberiu Klein filed a complaint against Twin City and Xydakis alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Klein Lawsuit alleged that Xydakis’s wrongful conduct caused Klein to lose his “statutory deadlines” and his opportunity to collect a “significant recovery” of settlement proceeds in an underlying 2014 tort action. The Klein Lawsuit alleged that Xydakis knew of his malpractice on March 9, 2018 after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals “issued a damning decision criticizing Xydakis for his various failures in representing [Klein], which amounts [to] legal malpractice ” [see also Klein v. O’Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018)]
The Twin City Insurance Policy
In December 2016, Xydakis applied for legal malpractice insurance coverage from Twin City. Twin City underwrote and issued a claims-made-and-reported Lawyers’ Professional Liability Policy to the Law Office of John S. Xydakis (the “Policy”).
Xydakis sought coverage from Twin City for liability in the Chen Lawsuit and for the Spiegel Motions for Sanctions. Twin City denied it owed Xydakis defense or indemnity obligations in these matters. Additionally, the Klein Lawsuit sought damages in connection with Xydakis’s alleged malpractice. Twin City likewise denied it owed defense or indemnity obligations for the Klein Lawsuit.
DISCUSSION
Under Illinois law, the insurer’s duty to defend arises when the facts alleged in the underlying complaint fall within, or potentially within, the policy’s provisions. The insured bears the burden of proving that its claim falls within the policy’s coverage. Once the insured has established coverage, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that a limitation or exclusion applies.
Claims-made insurance policies protect against the risk of an injured party bringing a claim against the insured during the covered period. Xydakis entered into a claims-made policy with Twin City that began on January 26, 2017 and specified January 26, 2016 as the retroactive date. By its plain language, the Policy covers only damages arising from Xydakis’s acts or omissions that occurred on or after January 26, 2016. The policy ended on January 26, 2018 and was not renewed. It allowed up to sixty calendar days after its termination to report a claim. So, Xydakis had until March 27, 2018 to make claims under the Policy. The Chen Lawsuit, the Spiegel Motions for Sanctions, and the Klein Lawsuit each fall outside the Policy’s scope of coverage, either for underlying conduct occurring before its retroactive date or for claims made after its expiration.
ESTOPPEL
Xydakis argued that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Twin City should be estopped from denying coverage. Estoppel only applies where the insurer has breached its duty to defend.
When the policy and the underlying complaint are compared there was clearly no coverage or potential for coverage, estoppel does not apply. Estoppel may not be used to create or extend coverage where none exists.
DUTY TO INDEMNIFY
Where no duty to defend exists and the facts alleged do not even fall potentially within the insurance coverage, such facts alleged could obviously never actually fall within the scope of coverage. Under no scenario could a duty to indemnify arise. Twin City owed Defendants no duty to defend in any of the underlying actions; therefore, no duty to indemnify existed.
The Court, therefore, granted Twin City’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court further declared that Twin City Fire Insurance Company owed no duty to defend or indemnify Xydakis under all his professional and individual forms.
ZALMA OPINION
A lawyer should know how to read an insurance policy. Ask one if he or she has read their policy and almost all will answer in the negative. Since a claims made policy requires that there is only coverage if the claim is made during the policy period. Xydakis failed to report the existence of the claims during the policy period so there was neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. In addition, he concealed the fact of litigation against him that predated the inception of the policy. Xydakis is properly out of business and no longer practices law and must pay any judgment against him from his own assets.
(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 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/g3cjXbnE to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
