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.
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
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 ...
