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.
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 ...
