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.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
