Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Is Not A Judgment On The Merits
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g6Hk37Ui and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-zTjbKU and at https://lnkd.in/g87hqpsR and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals resolved insurance issues concerning cable-damage in the Arabian Gulf by recognizing the difference between a broker and an agent, the place where – and to whom – a policy was delivered, and how to deal with the issue personal jurisdiction the court has over the parties and that a forum non conveniens dismissal is not a judgment on the merits; it is, instead a determination that the merits should be adjudicated elsewhere.
In Dynamic Industries, Incorporated; Dynamic Industries International, L.L.C.; Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia, Limited v. Walaa Cooperative Insurance Company; Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., doing business as Marsh, Inc.; Marsh USA, Inc., doing business as Marsh USA Risk Services, No. 22-30033, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 13, 2023) the disputes were resolved.
CLAIM OF INSUREDS
The insureds (Dynamic) assert that their insurance brokers (Marsh) failed to procure adequate insurance coverage from the insurer (Walaa), or in the alternative, that Walaa breached the insurance policy by declining coverage for an incident involving undersea cable-damage in the Arabian Gulf. The district court granted Marsh’s motion to dismiss the suit as untimely under Louisiana law. The district court also granted Walaa’s motion to dismiss the suit for forum non conveniens, reasoning that the insurance policy at issue designates Saudi Arabia as the exclusive forum.
DISCUSSION
First, as for Marsh, Louisiana law requires insureds who wish to sue their insurance broker to do so “within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect . . . should have been discovered.” [La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5606].
Case Against Broker
Dynamic sued Marsh after Walaa denied coverage. But Dynamic received a copy of the insurance policy from Walaa almost 18 months earlier. When Dynamic received that copy, it also received constructive notice of any deficiencies that the policy contained. Dynamic’s claims against Marsh are therefore untimely.
Dynamic rejects constructive notice, arguing that the policy contains “absolutely no indication that coverage would be denied.” But the denial was Walaa’s choice, not Marsh’s. According to Dynamic, the policy either omits coverage that Marsh is liable for failing to procure or offers coverage that Walaa must honor. For purposes of asserting its in-the-alternative claims against Marsh Dynamic asked the Fifth Circuit to assume that the policy omitted coverage. Any such omission was present when Dynamic received the policy so its suit is time barred.
Choice of Jurisdiction
Dynamic argued that the Walaa policy’s choice of Saudi Arabian law is unenforceable, under Louisiana law, if the policy was “delivered” in Louisiana. Dynamic says that it received delivery in Louisiana from Walaa’s agent – a Marsh affiliate known as Marsh KSA. Walaa responded that Marsh KSA was actually Dynamic’s agent, and that delivery therefore occurred in Saudi Arabia (where Walaa delivered the policy to Marsh KSA). The Fifth Circuit agreed with Walaa since Marsh, as a broker, is an agent of the insured not the insurer.
Under Louisiana law, an insurance broker is generally deemed to be the agent of the insured rather than the insurer. A broker who is asked by the client to procure coverage wherever possible at the best price is not the agent of the insurer. Marsh KSA “approached” multiple insurers looking for a “competitive price” for Dynamic. Marsh KSA was thus Dynamic’s agent.
After conducting an independent assessment of the clause’s enforceability, the district court properly concluded that delivery occurred in Saudi Arabia to the agent of the insured.
LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Separately, the district court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a Marsh affiliate known as Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (“Marsh Inc.). Yet the district court’s judgment dismissed Dynamic’s claims against Marsh Inc. “with prejudice” – that is, on the merits. ” A federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the parties i.e., personal jurisdiction.
Because the district court lacked personal jurisdiction, it also lacked power to issue a merits judgment regarding Marsh Inc. Likewise, the district court dismissed Dynamic’s claims against Walaa “with prejudice.” That too was an error, because a forum non conveniens dismissal is not a judgment on the merits; it is, instead a determination that the merits should be adjudicated elsewhere.
The Fifth Circuit, therefore, reversed dismissal as to Walaa Cooperative Insurance Company and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and remanded with instructions for the district court to enter judgment dismissing Dynamic’s claims against Walaa Cooperative Insurance Company and Marsh &McLennan Companies, Inc. without prejudice.” In all other respects, the District Court’s decision was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The parties won some arguments and lost others. The case established the fact that an insurance broker is not an agent of the insurer but is the agent of the insured who, on the insured’s behalf, transacts insurance. The District Court exceeded its authority and the Fifth Circuit set it straight affirmed part of the decision and reversed others.
(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: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
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/guWk7gfM
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
