Suing All State Farm Insurers Unconscionable
Barry Zalma
Jun 30, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g7_Tvisk and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ganUFBFS and at https://lnkd.in/gg_7u-cC and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4550 posts.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Auto”) and Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm General”) moved the court to dismiss all Plaintiff’s claims against the entities. The motion was regarded as unopposed.
In Bridget Butler v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, And State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 3:22-Cv-03433, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (June 23, 2023) a Bridget Butler whose home was damaged by two hurricanes sued three State Farm Insurance companies when only one insured her against the risk of loss of her property.
INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Laura made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana then Hurricane Delta made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff Bridget Butler owned property in Monroe, Louisiana. An entity of State Farm provided a policy of insurance to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to timely and adequately compensate Plaintiff for her substantial losses pursuant to the Policy. In turn, Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm Auto, State Farm General, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm Fire and Casualty”) claiming liability for damages for breach of contract plus general damages and for statutory violations and penalties under Louisiana Revised Statutes.
State Farm General and State Farm Auto moved for dismissal of the claims against them. Plaintiff filed no response to the motion.
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Complaint alleges that the “Defendant” issued and maintained a Policy insuring Plaintiff’s Property. The Complaint does not provide a specific policy number, and the Complaint asserts a policy number was unable to be identified because “Defendant” did not comply with Plaintiff’s request for production of the policy number.
Attached to their Motion to Dismiss State Farm General and State Farm Auto put forth an insurance policy with the policy number 99-CC-X642-7, and both companies assert that the attached policy is the Policy referenced in the Complaint. The attached policy is from State Farm Fire and Casualty and names Plaintiff as insured and the Property as the location of premises insured with a policy period of twelve months beginning August 25, 2020. State Farm General and State Farm Auto are not listed as parties in the attached policy. Additionally, both State Farm General and State Farm Auto maintain that neither entity has issued a policy to Plaintiff.
Under Louisiana law, no action for breach of contract may lie in the absence of privity of contract between the parties. State Farm General and State Farm Auto are not parties to the attached policy, and each assert it did not provide Plaintiff with any insurance coverage. Therefore, neither State Farm General nor State Farm Auto are in privity of contract with the Plaintiff. According to the attached policy, Plaintiff is only in privity of contract with State Farm Fire and Casualty.
CONCLUSION
Defendants State Farm General Insurance Company and State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.
Plaintiff maintains claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.
ZALMA OPINION
There should be no excuse for a plaintiff to require the State Farm entities that did not insure Ms. Butler to move the court for dismissal. A telephone call from defense counsel to plaintiff’s counsel informing Ms. Butler of the proper defendant and voluntarily dismiss the wrong State Farm entities. The decision of the court was easy but Judge Cain has more important things to do than deal with an unnecessary motion. Sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney could have been warranted.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
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.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
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
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/guWk7gfM
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; 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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
