Search Warrant not a Claim
Barry Zalma
May 31, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5Pgn9Sd and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gN25jD4g and at https://lnkd.in/g272GY5a and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
In Brown Goldstein Levy LLP; Joshua Treem v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 22-1023, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (May 18, 2023) the law firm of Brown Goldstein Levy LLP (“BGL”) and one of its partners, Joshua Treem, (collectively, “Appellants”) sued their insurer, Federal Insurance Company (“Appellee”), when it refused to provide coverage for costs Appellants incurred after the Government investigated Treem, executed a search warrant at BGL’s office, and notified Treem that his representation of certain clients may present a conflict of interest. The district court dismissed Appellants’ complaint, holding that there was no “Claim,” as that term is defined in the insurance policy, and alternatively that any costs Appellants incurred were excluded from the policy’s definition of “loss.”
FACTS
The Government began investigating attorney Kenneth Ravenell (“Ravenell”) in connection with a federal racketeering investigation. Ravenell engaged Treem and the firm to represent him in the investigation. The Government sent Treem a letter (the “Ravenell Conflict Letter”) informing him that he was “now a subject of the investigation and [his] conduct [was] within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.”
On June 13, 2019, the Government obtained a search and seizure warrant for BGL’s offices, which it executed on June 18, 2019. In executing the warrant, the Government seized tens of thousands of documents, including “all of Treem’s emails, regardless of their relation to Ravenell or relevance to the ongoing investigation.” That same day, the Government sent Treem’s counsel a letter (the “Target Letter”) to advise that Treem was “a target of the ongoing criminal investigation and the Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking Mr. Treem to the commission of crimes.”
Appellants sought relief in the district court, arguing that the seizure was beyond the scope of the investigation into Treem and Ravenell, and further objected to the Government’s use of a “Filter Team” to inspect the documents seized for attorney client privilege. Appellants moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injection and they prevailed at the Fourth Circuit. See In Re Search Warrant, 942 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019). Appellants maintain that they incurred over $230,000 in defense costs related to the search warrant litigation.
THE INSURANCE
Appellants obtained a professional liability insurance policy from Federal covering claims made between November 21, 2018, and November 21, 2019 (the “Policy”).
The Policy defines a “Claim” as any of the following: “(a) a written demand or written request for monetary damages or non-monetary relief; (b) a written demand for arbitration; (c) a civil proceeding commenced by the service of a complaint or similar pleading; or (d) a formal civil administrative or civil regulatory proceeding (including a disciplinary or grievance proceeding before a court or bar association) commenced by the filing of a notice of charges or similar document or by the entry of a formal order of investigation or similar document against an Insured for a Wrongful Act, including any appeal therefrom.”
Appellants gave notice to Appellee of their intent to seek insurance coverage pursuant to the Policy for the losses incurred in the search warrant litigation (the “Search Warrant Claim”) and the defense costs associated with defending Treem in connection with the criminal investigation (the “Partner Claim).
THE LITIGATION
Federal sued asking the court to declare the parties’ rights and obligations pursuant to the Policy and seeking damages for breach of contract. The district court issued an order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, the district court held that the Search Warrant Claim was not entitled to coverage pursuant to the Policy because it did not fall within the Policy’s definition of a “Claim,” and even if it did, the costs associated with the search warrant litigation do not constitute “defense costs” under the Policy.
ANALYSIS
Maryland courts only construe policies of insurance against the insurer when a policy term is “ambiguous.” A policy term is considered ambiguous if, to a reasonably prudent person, the term is susceptible to more than one meaning. If no ambiguity in the terms of the insurance contract exists, a court has no alternative but to enforce those terms.
The Government did not seek to redress any diminution of its legal rights, nor did it seek remedy for any harm brought upon it by Appellants The warrant application was not a demand or request for relief against the insured.
The search warrant itself is not a “Claim” because it is not a written demand or request. Neither the search warrant application nor the resulting search warrant are “written demand[s] or written request[s] for . . . nonmonetary relief . . . against an Insured” as required by the Policy. Therefore, the Search Warrant Claim fails because Appellants cannot state a claim for relief.
The Conflict Letters are not “Claims.” Despite Appellants’ attempts to characterize them as “demands,” they are not.
ZALMA OPINION
Lawyers liability insurance covers many actions against the insured lawyers but the policies do not cover everything. The conduct of the government against Brown Goldstein Levy LLP and Joshua Treem were egregious and resulted in the Fourth Circuit issuing a restraining order against the government. However, what the government did was not a claim nor were the actions of the insured against the government defense costs.
(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
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, 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://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; 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; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; 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
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
