Legal Conclusions are Not Allegations of Fact
Barry Zalma
Feb 12, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5rYCgH4 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gA4uUAj3 and at https://lnkd.in/g9BysvGz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
Post 4734
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5rYCgH4 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gA4uUAj3 and at https://lnkd.in/g9BysvGz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
Zox LLC (“Zox”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of West American Insurance Company. Zox contended the district court erred because the Zox Brothers sought damages for three potentially covered claims: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) disparagement; and (3) use of an “advertising idea.”
In ZOX LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, v. West American Insurance Company; et al., No. 23-55125, USCA, 9th (February 9, 2024) the dispute was resolved.
ANALYSIS
Under California law, a liability insurer owes a broad duty to defend its insured against claims that potentially seek damages within the coverage of the policy. Coverage turns not on the technical legal cause of action pleaded by the third party but on the facts alleged.
While the duty to defend is broad, an insurer will not be compelled to defend its insured when the potential for liability is tenuous and farfetched.
The Zox Brothers did not plead facts, nor provide extrinsic evidence, to satisfy any of the requisite elements of a malicious prosecution claim. The Pleadings did not trigger coverage for malicious prosecution.
Disparagement
The Zox Brothers must plead facts to show a false or misleading statement that clearly derogates that product or business.
Appropriation of Advertising Ideas
Zox Brothers triggered coverage by claiming that Zox appropriated their “advertising ideas” by using the “Zox” name and “passing off” their products as Zox Brothers’ goods. The district court did not err in finding that the Pleadings did not trigger coverage for a “use of another’s advertisement” claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated by the Ninth Circuit, outlined above, it found that West American did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Zox in the Zox Litigation because, there was no duty to defend.
Where there is a duty to defend, there may be a duty to indemnify; but where there is no duty to defend, there cannot be a duty to indemnify.
ZALMA OPINION
The Ninth Circuit applied the clear and unambiguous language of the policy to the “facts” alleged; found that the allegations were mostly speculative or based on legal conclusions, failure to allege facts to support the three claims failed and, therefore, the Ninth Circuit had no choice but to affirm the summary judgment find no duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify.
(c) 2024 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.
follow me @bzalma on X;Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g; videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
follow me @bzalma on X;Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g; videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
