No Defense for Lawyer/Business Owner
Barry Zalma
Dec 13, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gdQD4kQ8 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzCykvzY and at https://lnkd.in/g2VBJupX and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4788
Associated Industries Insurance Company (AIIC) sued Howard Kleinhendler and his former law firm, Wachtel Missry LLP, seeking a declaration that it need not provide insurance coverage for either defendant in a lawsuit brought by Allan Applestein. Applestein sought damages for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, elder abuse, and fraud related to the 2017 sale of land in Virginia, known as the Fones Cliffs Land, to Kleinhendler’s company, the Virginia True Corporation.
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Howard Kleinhendler, Defendant-Appellant, Wachtel Missry LLP, No. 23-57, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (December 7, 2023) the Second Circuit resolved the dispute.
THE POLICY EXCLUSION
The insurance policy contained an explicit exclusion for activities undertaken in the capacity of an officer of another business enterprise. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to AIIC because it determined the policy exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage due to Kleinhendler’s position with Virginia True.
CONTENTIONS
Kleinhendler contended that AIIC has a duty to defend him in the Applestein lawsuit because the lawsuit alleges some acts that could give rise to claims covered by the insurance policy, namely acts that occurred before the formation of Virgina True and acts related to the Fones Cliffs Land transaction that were unrelated to Kleinhendler’s position with Virginia True.
AIIC responded that it does not have a duty to defend him because the Applestein complaint squarely centers on the conflicted sale of the Fones Cliffs Land to Kleinhendler’s company, and its claims thus arise from Kleinhendler’s position with that company.
ANALYSIS
Under New York law, an insurer’s duty to defend is exceedingly broad. To be relieved of its duty based on a policy exclusion, an insurer has a heavy burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint cast the pleadings wholly within that exclusion.
The Second Circuit noted that the issue to be resolved is whether the Applestein complaint brings claims that could potentially result in liability not arising out of Kleinhendler’s position with Virginia True and concluded that it does not. The complaint does not state any claim for liability that does not arise out of Kleinhendler’s position with his company.
Therefore, the Second Circuit concluded that AIIC carried its burden to demonstrate the exclusion applied and it has no duty to defend Kleinhendler in the Applestein suit.
That each and every claim arises from the sale of the Fones Cliffs Land to Virginia True is confirmed by the damages Applestein seeks-$7,724,200.36, apparently corresponding to the amount he lost as a result of the transaction and a loan he made to HK Consulting Group LLC (another Kleinhendler company) in connection with it, plus interest.
In short, all of Kleinhendler’s potential liability in the Applestein suit stems at least in part from his position with that company.
Therefore, the district court properly concluded that AIIC’s policy exclusion applied.
AIIC does not have a duty to defend Kleinhendler in the Applestein action.
ZALMA OPINION
There is no reason why a lawyer cannot be involved in a business outside the practice of law. It only becomes a problem if the business is involved with a client of the lawyer owner. Insurers of lawyers limit the liability coverage to the practice of law and most, like AIIC exclude coverage for actions between a lawyer owner of a non-law business and a client of the lawyer.
(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 to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
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; 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 – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library. this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
