Coverage Limited to What the Insured Pays For at Inception
Barry Zalma
Dec 28, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbmzYmdn and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g4nVZ-uW and at https://lnkd.in/gfh-wGhF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4698 posts.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to resolve whether two residential homes destroyed by a fire while under construction were covered under an insurance policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) to its named insured, Talcon Group LLC (“Talcon”). Talcon is an underground utility contractor for sewer, storm drains, and treatment plants and never told Travelers it was building two residential buildings.
In Travelers Property Casualty Company Of America v. Talcon Group LLC, No. 22-13547, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (December 20, 2023) the Eleventh Circuit decided the extent of the coverage available to Talcon.
TWO RESIDENTIAL HOMES
Rick testified that “[a]lmost every bit” of Talcon’s work was underground utilities, such as sewers, storm drains, and treatment plant work. Talcon did not own the Florida land on which the two residential homes were constructed. Instead, the land was owned by a different family entity.
Talcon was to benefit from the sale of the two residential homes by becoming a “local vendor” in the county where the homes were being constructed, entitling it to a 5% advantage with other contractors when bidding on future projects in the county.
Wildfire Peril
In May 2020, a wildfire completely destroyed the two residential homes. At that time, the residential homes were mostly complete but did not have certificates of occupancy.
Talcon submitted a property loss notice, stating that the two residential homes were lost in the wildfires. Travelers denied the claim, because construction of two single family homes is not the same type of work as the installation of underground utility contractor work, which is what Travelers agreed to cover.
THE POLICY
In 2019 Talcon, through an insurance agent, submitted a ‘”Commercial Insurance Application” with Travelers. Talcon’s application was for a renewal of a 2018 policy with Travelers. In an application field titled “Description of Primary Operations,” Talcon listed “[u]nderground utility contractor.” Under the “Installation/Builders Risk Section,” Talcon selected “Installation,” indicated that it averaged three commercial projects each year and left blank a section to list the number and value of any residential projects. An e-mail to Travelers submitting the renewal application stated that Talcon conducted “predominately water and sewer line work,” and that a “heavy contractor questionnaire” was attached to explain Talcon’s exposures.
Travelers covered “Installation” property from direct physical loss or damage. The Policy “Definitions” section defined “Installation” as “[p]roperty described in the Declarations under ‘Installation’ owned by you or property of others for which you are legally liable, that you or your subcontractors will install, erect or fabricate at the job site.'”
THE SUIT
Travelers filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the two residential homes were not covered property under the Policy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers. Because the two residential homes were unrelated to Talcon’s underground utility work, the court concluded that the Policy did not cover them declaring that the Policy’s coverage did not extend to the construction of the two residential homes.
DISCUSSION
Under Florida law every insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor.
While Rick and Zack testified that Talcon constructed multiple residential homes in recent years, Talcon’s renewal application did not include this past residential work or indicate the prospect of future residential construction. Even though Talcon had begun constructing the two residential homes at the time of the renewal application, it misrepresented to Travelers that it was not engaged in any residential construction. Talcon, in fact, stated that 0% of its current work was “Residential” and 100% was “Municipal/Government.”
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the only reasonable reading of the Policy and the renewal application is that Travelers provided coverage for Talcon’s underground utility and site development work. The construction of the two residential homes was neither of those items and was not covered by the Policy.
ZALMA OPINION
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that neither party to the contract of insurance will do anything to deprive the other of the benefits of the contract nor misrepresent or conceal material facts from the other. In this case Talcon lied when it submitted its application by claiming it did no residential construction work at the time that it was, in fact, constructing two residential properties. Since it is true that liars never prosper the lie about the work being done defeated its claims.
(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...
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.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gus8Mzkq; go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
